Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL (LORDS] [BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 27 June.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 27 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Central Southern Africa

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next plans to meet leaders of central southern African countries; and if he will make a statement. [125204]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Feira attending an important meeting of the European Council and has asked for his apologies to be given to the House.
Tonight, I will be flying to South Africa to attend a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Durban, where I expect to meet leaders from other central and southern African countries. I visited Zambia in May. I will visit Mauritius on the way home and Angola in early July.

Mr. Winterton: I fully accept the reason why the Foreign Secretary is not able to be here and am delighted to learn that the Minister of State is flying to South Africa later today. What discussions has he had with states in central southern Africa about the desperate situation in Zimbabwe and about the presidential elections in particular, which are imminent? What views have the central southern African states put forward? Does he agree that it is essential that the Opposition party in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change, has an opportunity for free and fair elections?
Does the Minister further agree that the only way in which that wonderful country, which has such tremendous potential, can make progress is if all the peoples who comprise the population of Zimbabwe—black, white and

others—can work together to ensure a prosperous future for the country? People are desperately concerned about the elections. Can we have an assurance that they will be free and fair?

Mr. Hain: I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's points and acknowledge his long-standing interest in the region. We have had detailed discussions with all the African leaders, who share our concerns about the desperate situation in Zimbabwe.
The whole world has been appalled by the violence and terror unleashed by the Government of Zimbabwe. Britain has repeatedly urged that the people of Zimbabwe have the right to make their choice freely and fairly, but we will not pre-empt the verdict of international observers. Indeed, the leader of the Opposition there has said that to do so would be irresponsible. Only President Mugabe can end the intimidation by instructing those responsible for it. He owes it to his country to ensure that the election results reflect the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Although clearly we cannot pre-determine what the election monitors will be able to say about the elections in Zimbabwe, is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient observers have been allowed to go to Zimbabwe to look at the parliamentary elections this weekend, and that a full report will be able to be made available in the House and throughout the country as soon as those elections have been held?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is crucial to the fairness and freeness of the elections—the presence of observers from foreign countries. There are now more than 300; we would have liked more. Obstructions are still being put in their way. It is still not clear whether the 20,000-plus internal monitors will be able to get access to the polling stations, to inspect the registers and to carry out their duties. All those matters will need to be followed carefully and closely; indeed, we are doing that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that we should not be surprised about allegations of obstruction and intimidation in relation to the monitors? Indeed, the surprise would be if there were no such allegations in the light of the events of the past few months.
Is it not the case that those of us who are concerned about the future of Zimbabwe have to put our trust in the courage and determination of the people of that country to choose their own Government? Finally, if ZANU-PF were to win the election, how could Zimbabwe remain a member of the Commonwealth? What price the Harare declaration if the Government in Harare simply ignore it?

Mr. Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important case. I agree with much, if not all, of it. It is vital, first, that the people of Zimbabwe are able to determine their own destiny in choosing whichever party they vote for; and, secondly, that the policies adopted after the elections by whatever Government take


office take the country forward, rather than continue to send it down the drain, as unfortunately has been happening in recent times.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: In the light of the previous question, does my hon. Friend agree that, if President Mugabe, in defiance of democracy, continues to allow his supporters to act in a way that subverts the democratic process and, at the end of the elections, ignores the results given by a people who will speak for themselves—the outcome is not for us to determine—the Commonwealth will have to send a strong signal throughout the Commonwealth and, in particular, to democrats in Zimbabwe?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, that the Commonwealth has taken a close interest in Zimbabwe's future. The Harare declaration is very clear on all those matters. The Commonwealth ministerial action group, having considered the crisis in Zimbabwe, will no doubt have to consider what happens after the elections. We await the outcome of the elections to determine what the Commonwealth should or should not do.

Mr. Francis Maude: Is it not already transparently clear that the elections cannot be free and fair, and that the only way in which ZANU can win them is through the wholesale rigging, gerrymandering and intimidation that we have already seen? The only light in this dark period of that young country's life has been the raw bravery and undimmed determination of those Zimbabweans, both in the MDC and more widely, who simply refuse to see their country stolen from them.
Is not the overwhelming need now for the international community to make it clear that if Mr. Mugabe insists in clinging to a position that he has now defiled, he will become an international pariah, unwelcome to travel abroad; his regime, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, suspended from the Commonwealth; aid to his regime stopped; and his own stolen overseas assets seized? Would not anything less be a betrayal of those very brave people who are fighting for their country?

Mr. Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the situation in recent months has been extremely serious, and I acknowledge the fact that, some months ago, he visited the country to see that for himself. It is very important that, with the elections only days away, we choose our words very carefully, and that, as he said, the people of Zimbabwe have the courage and determination to go to polling stations and choose whom they want to vote for, freely and fairly. We support them in their right to choose their own Government without intimidation, without violence and without the terror and all the other things that have occurred in the past few months and made the situation so desperate for that country.

Sri Lanka

Mr. David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the conflict in Sri Lanka. [125205]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We are deeply concerned about the tragic situation in Sri Lanka, particularly the events in the Jaffna peninsula, and the danger to the civilian population. We call upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately. We fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks.

Mr. Taylor: But, as a power with some historic responsibility and influence in that region, are we doing enough? Tens of thousands of Tamils and Sinhalese have been slaughtered with European weapons. Does the Minister agree that the controls on the munitions merchants who are dealing death in Sri Lanka are woefully weak? Should there not be an international arms embargo to prevent that tragic conflict turning into a bloodbath? Is that not an ethical foreign policy?

Mr. Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The bloodshed and violence are appalling, and they are fuelled by the arms coming into the country. Of course, Sri Lanka has an elected Government who have a right to defend themselves. We shall review our own policy on arms exports, as we are doing, case by case, to determine whether it complies with our very clear criteria that those exports should not be used for either international oppression or external aggression.
The real priority, however, is to begin negotiations between the Government and the opposition LTTE. We are working tirelessly—with the Norwegians, with the Indians and with others—to achieve that, and we shall continue to do so.
Finally, Madam Speaker, may I acknowledge your own close interest in the island, which is much appreciated by the people of Sri Lanka?

Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the Minister of State made of the alleged link between the International Federation of Tamils, in the United Kingdom, and the so-called Liberation Tigers, in Sri Lanka?

Mr. Hain: We are aware of the activities of various representatives of the rebels in Sri Lanka, and of course we take a close interest in those activities to ensure that they conform with British law. We shall continue to monitor the situation.

Mr. Andrew Love: As the Minister has already mentioned, Norway and the United States are playing a role in trying to facilitate talks between the two sides in the conflict. What more can the Government do to end 17 years of civil war in Sri Lanka, which is estimated to have resulted in more than 70,000 deaths, and help to ensure that that country is now on the road to peace?

Mr. Hain: It is one of the unresolved regional conflicts that must now have the world's immediate attention to achieve the engagement necessary to promote negotiations and, ultimately, a lasting peace. My view is that the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka must be respected, but so must the rights of the Tamil community. Some form of autonomy, in the form of devolved government and perhaps with greater powers than have


been proposed by the President and her Government so far, may be the way forward. Meaningful negotiations should be instituted immediately following a cessation of hostilities to achieve that objective.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of Tamils live with the Sinhalese in the south of the country, and the solution that he has just suggested is therefore rather strange? Does he agree that one cannot be evenhanded in a situation in which the Government of Sri Lanka have constantly offered deals to people in the north and called ceasefires, only to have them broken by suicide bombings? It is difficult for the British simply to say, "Let's be evenhanded between the two sides."

Mr. Hain: It is not a question of being evenhanded. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the elected Government in Sri Lanka, and we respect them and have an excellent relationship with them. However, with many such problems, as we have seen on our doorstep in Northern Ireland, in the end one needs to pursue negotiations and achieve compromises to promote an ultimate peace. It is not for Britain to specify what that peace settlement would look like, nor to specify any form of devolution or autonomy that might result, and I was not doing so.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Syria on the middle east peace process. [125206]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the peace process with Dr. Bashar al-Assad in the margins of President Assad's funeral in Damascus last week. I myself discussed it with the Syrian Government during a visit to Damascus last month, and remain hopeful about the prospects for peace.

Mr. Cunningham: Given that Israel has now withdrawn from Lebanon, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Syrians could be persuaded to withdraw wholly or partially from the area it would achieve two things? First, it would achieve the unity of Lebanon and, secondly, it would give a shot in the arm to the peace process in the middle east.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong case and there should, of course, be no foreign armies in any country. That was the problem with the Israeli occupation over so many years. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic as a result of my discussions with Dr. Bashar al-Assad and with the Foreign Minister in Damascus last month. If negotiations can be resumed, there is a real prospect of a peace settlement with Israel that would no doubt include the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. The major priority is to get the negotiations over the Golan going as soon as possible.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Would not one contribution towards the building of trust between Syria and Israel be for the new Syrian regime to clear up the mystery of its long-term sheltering of the architect of

the holocaust in wartime France, Aloïs Brunner, in Damascus? Will the Government make representations to the Syrian regime that would indicate to it that it cannot expect to be taken seriously in the search for peace as long as a war criminal of that magnitude is sheltered in Damascus?

Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look into that matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. The Government have a clear record on the issue of the holocaust and that is why we declared a national holocaust day, the first one of which will be next year.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Now that Israel has left southern Lebanon and we have a new generation of leadership in Syria, will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to make it clear to the Lebanese and Syrian Governments that they should prevent Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations from launching terrorist attacks on the northern towns and cities of Israel?

Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed, and I raised precisely those points with Foreign Minister Shara when I was in Damascus last month. It is also important, now that the UN has declared the international boundary a clear boundary and has said that Israel has withdrawn back across that border, that everybody respects the peace process and that the Lebanese Government also engage constructively with the United Nations to make sure that that peace settlement sticks as a result of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Mr. Richard Spring: Given the clearly expressed desire of Bashar al-Assad to bring new technologies to his country, and given the new leadership that is now in place in Syria, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will seek to be at the forefront of any help in liberalising Syria's currently command-focused economy?

Mr. Hain: Yes. This is proving to be a consensual Question Time so far, although I do not hold out too much hope for the remainder of it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my discussions with Dr. Bashar al-Assad revealed a Syrian leader—although his father was still alive and still President then—with a lot of vision and a modern outlook. He knows Britain well and he knows the global culture well. He is well placed to lead Syria forward, not just in respect of information technology and deregulation and liberalisation of the economy, but, indeed, the modernisation of the economy that is so desperately needed, and to take an active part in the peace process and allow Syria to come into the international family of nations as a respected partner, rather than display a hostility to that international family, as it has in the past.

EU Enlargement

Mr. David Crausby: What recent discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in EU member states and applicant countries concerning the enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [125207]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed enlargement of the EU with his opposite numbers from the EU member states at the Feira European Council yesterday and today. They agreed that enlargement is essential if we are to spread peace, stability and shared values throughout the European Union. Britain is a strong advocate of a swift and successful enlargement of the EU. Both I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also frequently discuss enlargement with our counterparts from applicant countries. Since taking up my appointment, I have met most of the Foreign Ministers and chief negotiators from the applicant countries.

Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Specifically, has Turkey made any real progress towards the Copenhagen political criteria? How realistic are the prospects of Turkey ever becoming a full member of the European Union?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not very good, after last night.

Mr. Vaz: As my hon. Friend will know, we are keen to have Turkey in the European Union, no matter what its football team does. We feel it is important, as we confirmed at Helsinki, that it should be a member of the European Union, but, of course, the process of membership is, as my hon. Friend has suggested, very tough. Turkey will have to take part in the various accession agreements, prepare itself, meet the Copenhagen criteria and go through all the necessary negotiations and discussions that will be expected. I shall not put a date on Turkey's membership of the European Union. That is a matter for Turkey and the negotiations that are going on at this very moment.

Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely no need to give Brussels new powers of taxation as a prelude to enlargement? Will he take this opportunity to say that Her Majesty's Government would regard any continuing attempt by the Commission and other member states to include these very wide-ranging powers that they are seeking in the treaty as an obstacle to enlargement and a cause of delay? Will he rule out the need for any new powers of taxation for Brussels in the new treaty? Does he understand that it is no use the Prime Minister returning to the House saying that he has a settlement on the withholding tax if he grants Brussels more powers in the treaty of Nice which would allow it to introduce it by the back door?

Mr. Vaz: What a sad person the right hon. Gentleman is! I am sure that he would like to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that he has done at Feira. He will know that the tax package has now been agreed. Six months ago, the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members criticised the Government for being isolated on the withholding tax. I am pleased to tell the House that agreement has now been reached because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Therefore, the proposal to impose the withholding tax on the City has been defeated. All the other EU countries supported the line taken by my right

hon. Friends the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, which is that there should be an exchange of information.
The Government's position on tax and the treaty is clear. We will not give up our veto on tax. We will make it clear that we will act on taxation policies in the way we have always acted—that is, that we will take a hard-headed look at what is in Britain's national interest. Tax remains one of the core issues that we will not give up on.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Has my hon. Friend met any Foreign Minister from anywhere in Europe who believes that it is possible to enlarge the European Union without changes in the decision-making process and in the size of the Commission? If no such view exists, why does he believe that the Leader of the Opposition is calling for a referendum on matters such as the reweighting of votes in favour of larger nations such as Britain, which manifestly is in this country's interests?

Mr. Vaz: Of course, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary can only dream about going to European Council meetings, whereas my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are there at this moment. They support enlargement because it is in Britain's interests. We will have a single market of 500 million people. I am sorry that the official Opposition's policy is that they would have vetoed the intergovernmental conference and the treaty of Nice. I should have thought that they would have supported enlargement and the entry of Poland, Hungary and the other applicant countries into the European Union.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: With reference to enlargement, do the Minister's contacts, especially those with the Governments of eastern European countries, persuade him that those countries are making enormous efforts to meet the target dates proposed by the European Union? is the Minister confident that all other European Union member countries are as enthusiastic as Britain is about being able to reciprocate? Is he adhering to target dates of entry?

Mr. Vaz: The negotiations are going extremely well. One of the reports received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at yesterday's Council meeting was on the enlargement process. We believe that it is for the applicant countries to set their timetables in relation to the negotiations. For the Luxembourg Six countries, for example, only two chapters of the acquis remain to be opened, so progress is on-going.
It would be wrong for us to set an artificial timetable and deadline that we know would not be met, although we in the European Union must be ready with our timetable. That has been set by the IGC, and I am very pleased at the progress made yesterday and today. We are on target to complete the discussions and negotiations during the French presidency. We are confident that we can complete them by 31 December this year, and that as a result we will be ready to receive new members at the end of 2002. It will then be up to other countries to decide the target date for entry that is suitable for them.

Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Minister sense, as others have sensed and as the right hon. Member


for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) just suggested, a cooling of enthusiasm for early enlargement among current EU member states? Would it not be a scandal if the European Union failed in its high duty to embrace the whole family of European nations? Given that the single biggest roadblock to successful enlargement negotiations is a common agricultural policy that is morally, socially, economically, financially and environmentally indefensible, why did the Government not spend their time at the Feira summit seeking changes to give more control to member states, instead of trailing sadly behind the Commission's plans to create a single European super-state?

Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. When he was Minister at the Foreign Office, he gladly went along with the common agricultural policy, but now that he is in opposition he wants to change it. We have made our position on the CAP clear, which is that it needs to be reformed. If he read the Foreign Office website, he would know that the Luxembourg Six opened their discussions on the agriculture chapter last Wednesday. Those discussions will be the subject of tough negotiations, and we will follow their progress. The truth is that the Conservative party changes its policy every week. Last week at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party would veto the IGC and therefore stop enlargement. Is that still the case?

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What discussions he has had with his US and Russian counterparts following the conclusion of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. [125208]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We continue to maintain close contact with both the United States and Russian Governments on nuclear non-proliferation issues.

Mr. Savidge: I congratulate my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government on the role that they played in the success of that conference. May I urge the Government to work together with other nuclear weapons states to fulfil the spirit and the letter of the obligations entered into there, particularly on the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties and on progress with nuclear disarmament?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that Britain played a pivotal role in achieving a successful outcome to the non-proliferation treaty conference. We did so because after my speech in New York, I had discussions with the new agenda coalition—in particular the Irish, the New Zealanders and the South Africans—to say that we would work with the P5 nuclear states to try to achieve a common position. For the first time, an absolutely unequivocal declaration was given by the five nuclear states, Britain included, to work for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and for progress on all the other issues to which my hon. Friend referred,

including, crucially, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the fissile material cut-off treaty; and we will work vigorously to achieve entry into force of both treaties.

Sir David Madel: What is the Government's current attitude towards the United States national missile defence programme?

Mr. Hain: The Government's stance has been well stated. We are waiting to see what proposals the United States has for national missile defence and then we will make a judgment. I was, however, encouraged by the discussions between Presidents Clinton and Putin in Russia only a few weeks ago in which they agreed to discuss this matter and see whether they could find common ground. It is vital that whatever is done, the anti-ballistic missile treaty is not damaged but kept alive and in force, and that Russia and the United States continue to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and to co-operate, whether NMD—which is an untested, unproven system—develops or not.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister agree that while welcoming any Russian initiatives to bring about nuclear disarmament, we do not support Russia's plans to re-use plutonium taken from warheads to make so-called MOX nuclear fuel? Does the Minister agree that that would be both dangerous and environmentally damaging?

Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long and close expert interest in this matter. We remain very concerned about the use to which nuclear material is put in Russia, because a huge amount of it is available. It is important to world peace that the use of such material is properly monitored and regulated.

Mr. Francis Maude: The Minister knows that on national missile defence, the American Administration have made an informal request to know what the Government's position will be on upgrading the radar tracking facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. The House will want to know what the Government's response to that has been to enable the United States to deploy NMD if it decides to do so. Will the Government arrange to have an early debate in the House on this issue, which is of huge importance and comparable with the deployment of cruise missiles in the 1980s? The House will be keen to know on which side of the debate Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament members such as the Minister will be.

Mr. Hain: I remain on the Government's side of the debate. Indeed, I speak for the Government on these matters, and am doing so at present. As for the Government's attitude to national missile defence and any proposal that has not come in any specified form from the Americans so far, the difference between us and the Conservatives is that they will say yes to anything, even before they know what it is. The system has not been tested; it is vulnerable to decoys and all sorts of other technological devices. I urge the Conservative party to be cautious here. If and when the Americans decide to proceed with the system, we will consider it.
As I have said, we shall urge negotiations with the Russians to achieve consensus. How can we adopt an


attitude, as the Conservative Opposition have done, to a system and a policy that are not at all clear, and on which the Americans have made no decision?

UN Security Council Membership

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What estimate he has made of the time scale for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council to be changed to include a country from south Asia. [125209]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain continues to press actively for early enlargement of the UN Security Council to include permanent seats for countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as for Germany and Japan.

Mr. Prentice: That is good news; the UN should be reconfigured to reflect the realities of the modern world. There are those who believe that India is a strong contender for permanent membership of the Security Council. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that there can be no question of countries joining the Security Council as permanent members when they are in default, if that is the word, of UN resolutions? They must come into full compliance before they can even begin to be considered.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is right. As the second largest nation in Asia, India is a strong contender for any enlarged Security Council. It is ultimately a decision for the Asian group, and not one in which Britain will have the final say. Many matters will be taken into account when the decision is made, including those to which my hon. Friend referred. Other countries in Asia, including Indonesia and Pakistan, for example, will also put their names forward and make strong claims, and India's claim is undoubtedly strong.

Sir Sydney Chapman: What is the Government's criterion for qualifying for permanent membership of the UN Security Council? Is it a country's population, its geographical position or its compliance with UN resolutions? Surely the Government must have some view about their role in putting forward the case for new countries becoming permanent members of the Security Council.

Mr. Hain: We have a very clear view, and we are leading the discussion in New York on enlargement of the Security Council. The present Security Council reflects a world that is long gone. It needs to be modernised and updated, and that is a policy that we are pursuing.
Our policy is to have five new permanent members—Japan, Germany, one from Asia, one from Latin America and one from Africa. There will also be four new non-permanent members, one from Latin America, one from Asia, one from Africa and one from eastern Europe. That is a clear policy, which would result in a Security Council that reflected the realities of the modern world.

Pakistan

Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Pakistan. [125210]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain has close and long-standing ties with Pakistan and we continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a complete timetable for the transition to democracy.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that members of the settled Pakistani communities in Britain, who had high hopes of a Labour Government, are concerned about the issue that was raised on the previous question, and feel that the legitimate concerns of Pakistan are being ignored as a result of our pressure that Pakistan, rightly, should move swiftly towards democracy? Does my hon. Friend agree that if they feel like that, and Pakistan feels isolated, that represents a real threat to peace in south Asia?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that a Pakistan that feels isolated, embattled and beleaguered could find itself reacting accordingly, and that would be dangerous. I welcome the opportunity to place on the record the fact that we value our strong and historic friendship with the people of Pakistan. That friendship continues, although we rightly condemned the coup last year—there is no such thing as a good coup. Nevertheless, we want to see Pakistan develop, succeed and returned to democratic rule, and we will work with the Pakistani people and their representatives to achieve that, as we are now doing.

Mr. John Wilkinson: When General Musharraf considers the franchise, would it not be appropriate for him to move towards a single electoral list for the restoration of democracy in his country? In that case, minorities such as Christians, Hindus, Ahmedis and Parsees may get a fair deal. Will Her Majesty's Government press for an early lifting of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which cause great offence to minorities and are often an incitement to violence against them?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend—[Interruption]—I mean, the hon. Gentleman; this consensus has gone too far. The hon. Gentleman raises important points, with which I agree, about minorities in Pakistan. We shall press for the lifting of the blasphemy laws—indeed, we already have—and we shall consider the proposals for a new electoral registration system. On that and other matters, we have offered the Pakistani regime co-operation to help eradicate corruption from the judiciary, and to modernise its system of government and the civil service, which has also been deeply corrupt and inefficient. Offers of assistance have been made, and we hope that they will be taken up. We genuinely want Pakistan and its people to succeed.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The future of Kashmir is a burning issue for many Pakistanis in my constituency, and the vast majority believe that the Kashmiris should decide their own fate. Should we not use the United Nations to promote a plebiscite before we discuss whether there should be new UN representation?

Mr. Hain: As I have said, the issue of an enlarged Security Council is quite different from matters that may


or may not be occurring in Pakistan or India, even if those matters might influence the Asian group's decision about its representative. That is a matter for the Asian group, not Britain, to decide.
The crisis in Kashmir continues, and we remain actively engaged in seeking to resolve it. We want India and Pakistan to resume the Lahore process, which resulted from the courageous decision of the Indian Prime Minister to travel to Lahore. The discussions provided a breakthrough, and it is unfortunate that the subsequent Kargil incident in Kashmir—the author of which was General Musharraf—has, along with last year's coup, set the process back. We continue to urge both Delhi and Islamabad to get together to resolve the matter. It cannot continue as a festering sore, threatening stability in the region and the human rights of those in the area concerned.

Eritrea

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the situation in Eritrea. [125211]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Since May 1998, Eritrea and Ethiopia—two of the world's poorest countries—have been engaged in a senseless and tragic war that has caused an appalling number of casualties. We welcome the proposal for an agreement on the cessation of hostilities, recently brokered by the Organisation of African Unity in Algiers, and we shall work to support its early implementation.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for that response. Everyone hopes that the agreement will succeed. Does he agree that the main issue is policing the buffer zone? Are 2,000 peacekeepers enough? Is he aware of any European Union country having offered troops, and if so, how many? Is he aware of any contingency plans made by the UN in case the conflict resumes, causing the peacekeepers to be withdrawn?

Mr. Hain: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked serious questions about the problems in the Horn of Africa, which has been desperately hit by drought and other problems. The war must end. The United Nations is actively engaged in seeking to promote peace and stabilise the region, and Britain is working closely with the UN and supporting the Organisation of African Unity's proposals and the efforts to ensure that Ethiopia and Eritrea never again enter into that pointless war.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend ask the Department for International Development to make it clear that one condition for aid must be that it is not provided to countries waging war on their neighbours?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made it clear that she would not enter into a strong bilateral aid and

development programme while war was being waged and with no guarantee that resources from Britain would not, at least indirectly, continue that war.

Mr. Owen Paterson: If it is right to withhold aid from Ethiopia in case the money is squandered in Eritrea, why is it wrong to withhold aid from Zimbabwe, where we spend $27 million, much of it squandered on Mr. Mugabe's revolting private war in the Congo?

Mr. Hain: British aid to Zimbabwe is used, for example, to tackle the huge problem of HIV and AIDS. None of it is spent in the Congo. We have strongly condemned President Mugabe's strategy of using aid for that purpose, which is entirely wrong and has resulted in a British arms embargo. Britain is supplying £9 million worth of food aid to Ethiopia and Eritrea—the second largest contribution after that of the United States—and that will continue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that victims of AIDS in Zimbabwe, or victims of starvation in Ethiopia, should be denied aid—or is that a new Conservative policy?

St. Helena

Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to visit the island of St. Helena to mark the 500th anniversary of its discovery. [125212]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Regrettably—I am tempted to say—I have no current plans to visit St. Helena.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Russell: I invite the Minister to think again. I am advised that no Minister has ever visited St. Helena, and that the party on 21 May 2002 will be a good one. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be represented—and that it would be even better to deliver the news that citizenship had been restored?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman chairs the all-party St. Helena group—I understand that he takes an interest because St. Helena is the patron saint of his constituency. However, it takes about seven days by boat to get to St. Helena, and seven days to get back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] I will not volunteer to be sent; indeed, I am not so presumptuous as to book now for a passage in May 2002. We are co-operating in supporting the celebrations. The Foreign Office is contributing towards a new museum and national archive that will be completed in time for the anniversary, and I know that that is welcomed.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am sure the Minister knows that one famous person who went to St. Helena never returned. I have a suspicion that that person was poisoned by the people looking after him—but I am sure that the food has improved greatly since then. I am certain that St. Helena and many other British dependent territories are awaiting publication of a Bill to give them UK citizenship. When will such a Bill appear?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, most St. Helenians are


British dependent territories citizens, but they believe that they have a special claim to British citizenship. Preparations for an overseas territories Bill are well advanced, and we hope to make a slot available in the legislative timetable as soon as possible. Such legislation would affect all overseas territories—there are no special circumstances affecting St. Helena that would justify a separate Bill. We are working energetically on the legislation, and will meet all our commitments to the overseas territories.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I was about to suggest that the Minister should take the boat journey to St. Helena, so as to understand something of the sense of remoteness that the people of that island feel. But as it is not the wish of the House to give the Minister a prolonged holiday, what steps are the Government taking to minimise St. Helena's isolation and improve its communications?

Mr. Battle: St. Helena is remote, and access is mainly through passing ships that call in. There have been problems with its economic restructuring, but as a result of the efforts of both Governments, employment projects—by encouraging people to come here—have helped to reduce unemployment in St. Helena. We keep in close touch through our high commission, and get to St. Helena when we can. If any hon. Members would like to visit the island, we will happily make sure that they have a safe passage.

BBC World Service

Miss Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the BBC World Service. [125213]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The BBC World Service has the full support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Objectives for the World Service are agreed between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service, and progress is regularly reviewed. Funding for the World Service is via a grant in aid from the FCO. There are close and frequent contacts between my Department and the World Service at all levels—and I am assured that one can hear the World Service even in St. Helena.

Miss Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the World Service now has its own internet service, BBC Online. That site is proving very popular, and since January last year its use has tripled to 24 million page impressions a month. Will he assure me that funding will be available so that that valuable service can continue to grow, and continue to be the most popular audio news service on the internet in the world?

Mr. Vaz: I assure my hon. Friend that the World Service has many influential friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I know that the Ministers responsible have had frequent meetings with Mr. Byford and his staff. Of course we shall do all that we can to support their work. As my hon. Friend knows, when the matter was last considered in 1998, the World Service received an additional £44.2 million for its £177 million

budget. She also knows that 151 million people a week listen to the World Service, and more are getting involved in it because of internet access. I assure her that we are very sympathetic to what she has said.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: With friends like the Foreign Office, who needs enemies? I might say:
how short-sighted it is to cut the funding of one of the greatest assets of Britain, which should be one of the best investments that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could make in foreign relations.—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 203.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the current Foreign Secretary when he complained about World Service funding in January 1996. Will the Minister therefore explain why, under the Labour Government, funding for the World Service has been cut so that it is worth less in real terms than the funding in 1996 when the Foreign Secretary criticised the Conservative Government? Is not that abysmal situation for our World Service yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another?

Mr. Vaz: I am sorry that the hon. Lady prepared her question before she heard my answer. I am sure that she listened carefully to what I said, but in case she did not, I repeat that in 1998 there was an increase of £44.2 million in the World Service budget for the following three financial years—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady stops talking and listens for one moment, she will realise that that was an increase, not a decrease. We fully support the World Service and will consider sympathetically all the requests that it makes—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady might listen to the answer.

Mr. Vaz: I think that the hon. Lady is preparing her question for the next Foreign Office Question Time, but she is doing it a bit early. If she listened to Ministers' answers, it would help her enormously.

Plan Colombia

Ms Rosie Winterton: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Plan Colombia; and what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to it. [125214]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office hosted a meeting on Monday 19 June to help to examine ways in which the international community can help the Colombian Government to take forward the difficult peace process, and we invited non-governmental organisations to participate and give a presentation at the meeting. The meeting paid particular attention to the need to improve human rights and the rule of law, to prevent further degradation of the environment and to combat illegal drugs production and trafficking.

Ms Winterton: Will my hon. Friend indicate exactly how Plan Colombia will help the Colombian Government in their fight against the drug barons, who are funding the activities of guerrillas and paramilitaries? What are the


United Kingdom Government doing to encourage other countries to assist the Colombian Government in their battle against the drug barons and the activities that go with them?

Mr. Battle: Our purpose is to address not only drug trafficking but the whole social and economic development of Colombia, which is what President Pastrana requested when he visited in April. I ought to make it plain that no assistance has been given by any EU member state or ourselves under Plan Colombia, and no pledges have been given. We shall discuss a range of proposals with EU countries and others at a conference in Madrid on 6 and 7 July. However, as everyone present on Monday agreed, our purpose is to address the fact that there may be a window of opportunity for the international community to support the peace process as a whole.
We are especially interested in specific social and economic proposals, which means that we must examine how any plan gives strong emphasis to supporting human rights in Colombia and pays clear attention to the issue of paramilitaries, sending strong messages about impunity, kidnapping, and collusion between armed forces and paramilitaries. There is also a need to ensure that the economic and social development of Colombia works for the ordinary poor people of Colombia in the long term. That is our aim and the purpose of the process, which we have taken the initiative to push further forward. It will be a long-term process, and we hope that it will continue and be sustained in Madrid with our partners.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister will be aware of many well-sourced allegations of collusion between the Colombian military and the paramilitary forces that are killing civilians, including those at peace communities such as Apartado. Does the Minister agree that it would be appalling if any assistance from the UK to the Colombian Government under Plan Colombia were to be given via the Colombian military—perhaps in spite of the wishes of the Colombian Government—who might then be found to be assisting the paramilitaries in carrying out civilian killings? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will make the matter a priority in their negotiations, and will seek to extract guarantees that such events will not happen?

Mr. Battle: The answer is yes. Amnesty International and others have recorded some 24,000 murders in Colombia, so the level of violence is intimidating and, frankly, incredible. We have made it plain that we should support the efforts of the Colombian Government to get a grip on paramilitaries. I want to emphasise the fact that the purpose of the discussions is to suggest that in returning to decent civilian administration, Colombia needs to engage rather more at ground floor level. Indeed, we have encouraged it to engage with NGOs locally.
The Colombians present at yesterday's meeting took on board both those messages. Certainly, Colombia needs to get to grips with the paramilitaries and involve NGOs in

the future development of any plans, as it is vital that NGOs' interests in the design and implementation of those plans are now brought to the forefront.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister saying that Plan Colombia and support from other EU countries was not covered at the summit in Portugal today? Will he assist the House by telling us what plans there are to find alternative agricultural crops for Colombians to harvest?

Mr. Battle: I gather that the matter was mentioned at the margins of the Portugal summit. However, a conference in Madrid has already been arranged for 6 and 7 July to discuss what is broadly described as Plan Colombia. We are trying to see how to extend support for that plan and ensure that is clearly focused on the alleviation of poverty, as well as other social and economic objectives.
In response to the hon. Lady's question, I would add that we need to consider appropriate development of alternative crops. In the past, unsavoury alternatives were suggested in some cases. That is not the way forward, and we must consider crops that enable ordinary farmers to earn a just living, to go to market and to feel that they are not blighting the world. Sadly, most of the cocaine that gets on to the streets of Britain's towns and cities comes from Colombia, and it is in everyone's interest to come up with alternatives and make them work.

Mr. Paul Goggins: In my hon. Friend's discussions on Plan Colombia, will he continue to argue that it should be centred on the protection of human rights, and should not simply become a US-led military strategy?

Mr. Battle: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has visited Colombia and takes a great interest in such matters. We look forward to his continuing contribution to our conversations and discussions, and I completely concur with his comment.

China (Human Rights)

Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of his policy of constructive engagement with China in terms of human rights, with particular reference to Tibet. [125215]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The bilateral human rights dialogue with China enables us to discuss in depth and critically a wide range of human rights issues, with particular emphasis on Tibet. We continue to press the Chinese to allow greater freedoms in Tibet, and to engage in a dialogue with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, on a long-term political and peaceful solution there. We welcome the small steps towards opening up Tibet; we have recently persuaded the Chinese to accept the visit of the all-party group on Tibet.

Mr. Baker: That all sounds very grand, but has not the Foreign Office policy been an abject failure? While the Chinese have been signing lots of bits of paper, the human rights situation in Tibet has deteriorated markedly.
The Chinese Government calculate that trade is more important to the UK and other western countries than are human rights, which can be jettisoned. Will human rights be a consideration when the World Trade Organisation makes a decision on China's entry? Will the Foreign Office provide funds to support the all-party group's visit to Tibet?

Mr. Battle: I make it plain that it is not, and never has been, Foreign Office practice to supply funding for visits made by all-party country groups. Our conversations with the Chinese have had some impact; for example, we have now arranged for the Foreign Secretary's death penalty

panel to consider the abolition of the death penalty in China, and now have to determine only the date of the panel's visit. We persuaded the Chinese to allow the all-party group to visit, and it is up to those involved to make the arrangements. We managed to get them to co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross on prison visiting.
Progress is pitifully slow. Only this morning, I invited Ambassador Ma to my office to make another representation on a human rights case. We shall certainly not be fearful of making such representations, but it is better to engage so that we can make them, rather than facing a shut door.

Point of Order

Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government indicated to you whether they will be responding to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for a statement on the fate of Major Andrew Harrison? Following his release from capture and torture, he is still in an area controlled by rebels in Sierra Leone and, as our troops withdraw, the House will want to know of his fate.

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement or to make any response today. The hon. Gentleman knows that if a statement is to be made, it is usually on the Annunciator by lunchtime.

Subscription Television (Prevention of Monopoly Sports Broadcasts)

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events.
Why is Sky television prepared to pay £1.1 billion for three years' broadcast rights of premier league football? Why has Sky made a joint arrangement with the BBC for rights to FA cup matches and England internationals for three years which is worth £345 million? The answer is, of course, terribly simple: it wants to be a monopoly supplier of live football to British fans. Soccer fans have nowhere else to go. Like sports fans everywhere, they are prepared to pay large sums to watch their sporting heroes. Sky's sporting package now costs over £300 a year—three times the licence fee.
I know how irrational soccer fans can be because I am just as irrational in making decisions about how much money I am prepared to spend to watch cricket. It may be that English cricket, soccer and rugby fans are a breed apart. We will still be coming back for more, however England performs. The sad fact is that Sky knows that and is earning a fortune from the monopoly position that the House is enabling it to enjoy. The time has come to protect the interests of the consumer who is at the mercy of a monopoly supplier.
As I have implied, I have an interest to declare. I am a consumer of Sky's sporting package, and the Bill was prompted by that personal experience. It seemed to me, when dealing with Sky to establish or repair the service, that the arrangements were wholly inflexible and designed to suit its interests, and not mine. Sky gave appointment days rather than times for engineers, and made dates to suit its schedule, rather than mine—and that was after waiting ages on the telephone and in addition to the unfailing ability of the service to collapse when one really wanted to watch it.
It is clear that I am not alone. The Scottish Sunday Mail consumer affairs columnist wrote in April:
If I had to nominate the worst company in Scotland for customer service, the dubious honour would go to Sky Television. By a mile.
He recounts tales of people being overcharged, the Sky digital system not working, technical bungles and lamentable customer service, and complaints about delayed installations, engineers not turning up on agreed dates, extra installation fees and mistaken disconnections.
One correspondent successfully arranged to have the engineer turn up on her day off work. She said:
We waited all day. When I phoned Sky, they told me it had all been cancelled but couldn't tell me why. Surely this is no way to treat new customers? I would like to be connected because they still have my £80. But after six months, I don't know what will happen.
Surely, she could take her custom elsewhere—but, in effect, she cannot. The product—live English cricket, premier league soccer, live home rugby internationals—is Sky's, and Sky's alone. It can be obtained via ONdigital, but the price will be the same or higher than that charged to Sky's customers. However, people should not expect Sky to tell them that, even in response to a direct question when they telephone Sky's customer services.
Millions of British people have proved to be such enthusiastic sports fans that they will pay the subscriptions to watch those events live. Sky alone has 8.6 million subscribers, and the number is rising fast. That represents subscription income of about £3 billion a year. Our legislation has put fans at the mercy of a monopoly. That monopoly has the potential to exploit the interest and enthusiasm of those fans for its own gain. Without competition, the monopoly is exercising its power, as shown in the price that it demands and the often rotten customer service that it delivers.
The Bill is a vehicle to protect consumers from exploitation. It is a limited measure, in which it is acknowledged that a variety of interests have to be balanced. The owners of the rights to the sports have a right to try to maximise their income. There is a national interest in ensuring access to such great sporting events as part of the glue of common experience that holds a nation together. There is also a national interest in ensuring that sporting opportunities are developed for all. Incidentally, the owners of the sporting rights believe that the voluntary code of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which involves investing at least 5 per cent. of the revenue from the broadcasting rights into grass roots sports, discharges that responsibility—but I do not; that target is feeble.
The viewers also have interests, which were acknowledged when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was considered in Committee. The then Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, lain Sproat, said:
it is no use saying, "We completely disregard viewers' interests. We shall allow whoever has the most money to buy up all the sports and to show them to the 18 per cent. of people who have cable or satellite." A balance has to be struck.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 564.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) took a leading role in trying to protect viewers' interests then, and I am grateful to him for his support in this effort to improve their lot. I am delighted that he and hon. Members from both sides of the House agree that we got the balance wrong in 1996.
The revolutionary rise of satellite, cable and digital multi-channel television has brought exciting opportunities. Benefits have already flowed from the competition between terrestrial broadcasters and the satellite broadcaster. There has been a substantial increase in sports coverage in terms of transmission time, the type of sport and the variety and quality of coverage, but the deck is now stacked heavily against the terrestrial broadcasters and the pockets of the viewing public.
My Bill would build on the framework of the 1996 Act; it would add another dimension of competition, which would protect viewers' interests and further enhance the quality of coverage. It would do that by abolishing monopoly rights to broadcast listed events by subscription broadcasters. It would introduce horizontal competition in the broadcasting of those events, as well as vertical competition to secure rights to broadcast them live.
My Bill would ensure that unless a category A broadcaster—that is, those channels to which access is universal and free—has the rights to broadcast a listed event live, at least two different subscription broadcasters must have the rights to broadcast the major listed sporting events live. Those paying subscription charges for satellite television have the right to expect some competition and to have at least some ability to shop around for the leading sporting events.
Cricket test matches, the cricket world cup, the open golf championship, the Ryder cup, non-finals play at Wimbledon, the rugby world cup, the six nations rugby tournament—which involves the home countries—the Commonwealth games and the world athletics championships could all be prised from terrestrial live transmission and placed with a monopoly subscription supplier, yet they are already listed as events meriting access for the wider public.
English football is the biggest television sport on the planet and the premiership is at its heart. I believe that premiership football should be subject to the competition and choice that my Bill would provide, so I would like that popular championship to be added to the group B list. However, under the Bill, that would remain a matter for the Secretary of State. All that the Bill seeks to achieve is a choice for enthusiastic sports viewers. It is time to protect the public from a monopoly supplier.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Tony Wright.

SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION (PREVENTION OF MONOPOLY SPORTS BROADCASTS)

Mr. Crispin Blunt accordingly presented a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 144].

Opposition Day

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Football Hooliganism

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House condemns unreservedly the actions of hooligans purporting to support the England football team at the Euro 2000 championships; hopes that there will be no repetition of these actions and that UEFA's threat to expel the England team from the tournament will not be acted upon; notes that UEFA and others have criticised the Government's lack of action to tackle football hooliganism; further notes that proposals to stop unconvicted hooligans from travelling to international matches were brought forward by Opposition honourable Members during proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 but were not taken up by the Government, despite the Minister for Sport's statement that such powers were necessary; calls on the Home Secretary to explain the inaction and delay that has characterised the Government's approach, despite the undertakings given by Ministers to bring forward their own proposals; and calls on the Government urgently to take the action it has promised for two years to tackle the problem of the thugs who are a disgrace to this country's proud footballing tradition.
Members on both sides of the House will deplore the violence that has been seen on the streets of Brussels and of Charleroi over the past few days. The hooligan element—who may describe themselves as football fans, but are nothing of the sort—are a disgrace to this country. They have brought shame to it and to our national game. They have, very sadly indeed, detracted from the magnificent win that our team managed against Germany, which we hope to see repeated on many occasions.
I pay tribute to our team, who have played their boldest and their best, and to our law enforcement agencies, including the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and those in Belgium and the Netherlands who have worked so hard to ensure that the scenes that we witnessed did not deteriorate into something worse. I also pay tribute to the work of the Football Association and the England coach, Kevin Keegan. They have rightly called on the hooligans to back the efforts made by the team on the field of play and to cease their actions off it. We must all hope that the scenes witnessed last week are not repeated, either tonight or in coming days, and that UEFA's threat to expel the so very well performing England team from the tournament is not acted on.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the right hon. Lady noticed that for England's games, the Belgian police prepared for a riot and allowed the sale of double strength beer whereas the Dutch police prepared for a party with pop music and half-strength beer, and by encouraging the use of a drug that has a calming effect? The expectations of both police forces were fulfilled. Should not the Belgian police take a leaf out of the Dutch book?

Miss Widdecombe: I am not sure whether we have heard the genuine voice of the Labour party; I suspect that

Labour Front Benchers would probably say not. I shall refer to beer later on, but shall not comment on those other matters.
During a debate in June 1998, after the violence in the world cup, the Home Secretary said:
Last Monday, I spoke to Mr. Chevenement to apologise on behalf of the British Government and people for the events in Marseilles. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that such disgraceful scenes are not repeated in future soccer tournaments.— [Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 720.]
Yesterday, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister spoke of their deep apologies to the people of Belgium, and promised action to reinforce our determination to stamp out hooliganism overseas. Those words were worryingly familiar.
Two years separated those statements and those events. During that time, nothing has been done to effect the Home Secretary's promises. Yesterday, in his statement to the House, the Home Secretary showed the muddle that he had got into. It is not surprising that he is in a muddle. He cannot even agree with his junior Minister on the best policy.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House—this may interest the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—that he hoped that the Belgian authorities
will follow the lead of the Dutch authorities. Alcohol was not banned in the Netherlands, but regulations were laid down requiring the sale only of very low-strength alcohol. That seems to have worked satisfactorily.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 43.]
Will the Home Secretary clarify the Government's policy? Last month, Lord Bassam, who is responsible for the matter, called for a complete ban on the sale of alcohol in Euro 2000 host cities. He said that he did not want beer-fuelled fighting on the streets. Is Government policy in favour of a complete ban, or is it that alcohol should not be banned? The policy is unclear.
What has been happening the past two years is even less clear. There is an enormous difference between the Government's rhetoric and their actions. In view of specific statements by the Home Secretary in the past few days, it is worth putting on record the course that the debate has taken in the past two years.
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He had the foresight to raise the matter of sanctions against unconvicted football hooligans as long ago as June 1998. He tabled amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill more than two years ago. Those amendments would have allowed the courts to place restrictions on anyone who
acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order … is necessary to prevent him from disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom …
I must give the Home Secretary some credit because he was not wholly unreceptive. He said that my right hon. Friend's proposal for a football behaviour order was an important idea and that the Government would sit down and work on it. He has certainly been sitting down ever since.
In a subsequent letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the Home Secretary said:
I feel that this proposal is very important.


Last night, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), told "Channel 4 News" that there was "a very strong case" for the proposal. However, it seems that the case has not been strong enough until now, and the proposal was not sufficiently important for the Home Secretary to include it in any of the 10 Home Office Bills this Session.
Following the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, Conservative Members did not give up. The proposal was again made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), to whom I also pay tribute for his work, during Second Reading of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the Home Secretary said:
a number of Members taking part expressed their concern
during the debate. Subsequently, the Home Secretary, his Ministers and his spin doctors have tried to perpetuate the unsustainable contention that it was exclusively Opposition Back Benchers who expressed that anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed that this "important provision" was
dropped because the bill was disrupted by a minority of Conservative backbenchers.
In a letter to me, the Home Secretary condemned what he had the audacity to call "Conservative wrecking tactics". He should tell his spin doctors not to claim what the record so easily disproves—or, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said yesterday with admirable straightforwardness, he should not "rewrite history". However, the right hon. Gentleman did not instruct his spin doctors that way. Instead, he grasped hold of that ludicrous spin like a drowning man clutching at straws—[Interruption.] No pun intended.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Was it not totally wrong, on a issue such as this, to state on Second Reading that there would be a major amendment to a private Member's Bill? On an issue of such importance and on which there was a consensus across the House, would not Government legislation have been more appropriate, to ensure that it would gain Royal Assent and become law?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is right and speaks a good deal of sense. He will see that that matches what we expected to happen. For although it may be true that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised concerns, so also did several Labour Members, including the hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary and his spin doctors have never even hinted at that, yet the hon. Members who expressed concern included the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who warned that the orders could be made to apply to what he described as "innocent" fans, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who said:
I would be extremely concerned if … we went further down the road of giving greater powers to the police in cases where convictions have not been confirmed … We should allow nothing … to compromise our commitment to civil liberty.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) urged consideration of what he described as "the human rights implications" and warned of the creation of "a serious

precedent", and the hon. Member for Burnley said that the course of action proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford was "dangerous", and added:
I have always been quite strong on civil liberty and human rights issues.—[Official Report, 16 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 491–99.1

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I endorse everything that she has said but, bearing in mind that the debate results from what has happened in Euro 2000, does she accept that to those of us who have studied all the press coverage, it appears that a number of people who have been deported back to the United Kingdom and who seem to have been involved in loutish and unacceptable behaviour were drawn into it quite innocently?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to that point later in my speech.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If the right hon. Lady is coming to that, perhaps she will spend a little time this afternoon considering why we have hooligans. Many people outside believe that the problem exists because of a collapse of values in the 1980s, which occurred during the period of Thatcherism—a collapse in education, a collapse in law and order, and a collapse in every value in society. That is what the public are saying. 1 know that the right hon. Lady is well aware of these matters. Why does she not speak about them?

Miss Widdecombe: If I were to have an argument with the hon. Gentleman about the origin of the collapse of values, I would point to the 1970s and 1960s as the period when that occurred. The hon. Gentleman's comment is a distraction from the debate. We are raising the problems that the Home Secretary has not addressed, for which he has faced international condemnation. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, the fact that the Government have not addressed the problems will be rehearsed time and again on the Floor of the House this afternoon, and he will have to sit and listen.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady is discussing what the Government have and have not done. Does she support a policy whereby one restricts the liberty of people who have not been convicted in the courts? If so, what limit is there to the proposition that people will have their rights taken away before they have been found guilty?

Miss Widdecombe: It is my position that, subject to certain safeguards, it is desirable that we take a very serious look at doing just that.
I should have liked the Home Secretary to have fulfilled the promise that he and his Ministers made on several occasions: they said that this was an important issue to which they would return in Government time. They did not—

Mr. Phil Woolas: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I wish to make progress. No one can deny that I have already given way extensively. I shall give way no more until I have finished this particular passage.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No. Given that I have just refused to give way to the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), I must refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman as well, because I am egalitarian in my refusals.
Perhaps the Home Secretary, his Ministers and his spin doctors will end this campaign of completely unsustainable statements, which have been twisting the reality of what happened in the House some 14 months ago. In Committee, the issue was discussed at great length, although no amendments were tabled on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made crystal clear the Opposition's support for what we believed was the Government's plan to introduce a measure in Government time, after the Minister for Sport, told us:
The power to make banning orders in respect of people without conviction is necessary … the Government will want to return to the matter … We need to find a way of dealing with these people.

Mr. James Paice: Where is the Minister?

Miss Widdecombe: The more important question is, where on earth is this measure?
The Minister for Sport continued:
We accept that the issue is complex and that the Bill—
that is, the private Member's Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford—
is not the right place to deal with it … we may be able to deal with this issue later in a Government Bill.
Still, the Government had the opportunity to include the powers in the Bill.
However, the amendment to the Bill that dealt with this subject was not a Government amendment, as the Home Secretary's spin doctors have claimed. It was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—one of those whom the Home Secretary has accused of attempting to wreck the Bill. My right hon. Friend gave the Home Secretary a warning, which he would have done well to heed. He said:
With the Euro 2000 championships coming up, it is important that we do not have gaps in legislation.
That was as long ago as May 1999.

Mr. Woolas: rose

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I have almost finished this part of my speech; I shall then give way to him.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) warned that he was
slightly worried that we will lose the legislation in the long term.
He was right. He went on to say:
I hope that the Minister's assurance is correct … People will question our judgment if incidents in the coming months or years show that we have let the loophole remain.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 May 1999; c. 5–7.]
The Government have given commitments on this issue which they have utterly failed to fulfil. On that basis alone, the Home Secretary's judgment must be called into question.

Mr. Woolas: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Does she stand by the comments made by the

Conservative party spokesperson and reported in The Times of 30 May of this year? He or she—some mysterious spin doctor—said:
Only once these measures are being fully used can we start to assess whether there is need for further legislation.
The Conservative party spokesperson at the time accepted the Government's position. Is not the right hon. Lady trying to rewrite history?

Miss Widdecombe: Had those measures been in place, we would now be in a position to assess them. However, the measures are not in place, so we cannot assess them.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: As we are exchanging newspaper banter across the Floor of the House, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees with the comments of Charlie Whelan, the former new Labour spokesman? He said in The Observer that Jack Straw had
passed the buck to the Belgians,
that he had
a lot to answer for,
and that the Belgians were "rightly furious".

Miss Widdecombe: I think that, for once, Mr. Whelan has hit the nail on the head.
Let me return to the Home Secretary's statement. He could not have been more explicit about the need to plug the loopholes that have been left as a result of his own inaction. He claimed yesterday that the majority of those who had so far been deported were not known hooligans, and that only 15 were. Setting aside the observation that that is still 15 too many, let me add that reports today indicate that as many as half those who were deported had criminal convictions. How many of those who were known hooligans travelled to Belgium and the Netherlands, contributed to the trouble and were not detected by the police in those countries?
Tonight the BBC will screen a "Panorama" programme which purports to give answers on that front. The BBC states today that it has
for the past eight days been covertly filming known football hooligans who have evaded checks and controls to get into Belgium and Holland.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House:
We are pretty certain that, in all but 15 cases, our work has been effective in ensuring that those people did not travel abroad.
He made the ludicrous statement that his actions had
worked almost completely to prevent those people from travelling abroad.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 40–44.]
Today, however, the BBC reports that the head of the British police hooligan spotting team has said that
the majority of people that UK authorities hoped would be denied entry to the host countries are now in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Analysis of that kind does not square with what the Home Secretary told the House yesterday. Who is giving us the facts, the right hon. Gentleman or the head of his anti-hooligan team?
The Home Secretary has claimed that he is leading a new crackdown on hooligans, with tough new powers to ban hooligans for life from English football matches. Why, the House might ask, was the crackdown not initiated before the Euro 2000 tournament?
Is the Home Secretary aware that the chief executive of UEFA responded to his statement yesterday by saying that he did not believe that the Government could not have done more to stop hooligans from making it to Euro 2000, and that if new measures were being announced, they could have been taken previously?
If the new powers are so necessary, why were they not introduced by the Home Secretary earlier? He knew about Euro 2000: my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border had warned him about it as much as a year ago. If new legislation is now needed so urgently, why did the Home Secretary even last month reject the calls for emergency legislation on the issue from the FA and others? Why has the Minister with responsibility for the issue, Lord Bassam, said this to the BBC? He said:
We will need to revisit the range of powers we have. We need to learn the lessons from all these events.
Will the Home Secretary tell the House what progress Lord Bassam has made since taking up his post in regard to the commitment from the Minister for Sport to introduce new Government legislation? The answer is presumably none.
Why were the lessons not learned from Marseilles in 1998? Why did the Home Secretary allow the law enforcement agencies to go into the Euro 2000 tournament with what he and his Ministers now admit were inadequate powers to combat hooliganism? The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has got himself into the most terrible fix—but the House does not have to take my word for it. It should take the word of the German Interior Minister, who said that he was "concerned" at the lack of legislation from the Government. It should take the word of the president of the German Football Federation, who is also chairman of the Euro 2000 committee, who said:
It is not the best idea by your country to do nothing. We have confiscated passports to try and avoid trouble.
The chief executive of UEFA has said:
It is regrettable that the Government in the United Kingdom has not introduced legislation which would make it possible to stop registered hooligans from travelling.
The mayor of Brussels commented:
There was an agreement between the British Government and our Ministry of the Interior to stop as many people as possible who might commit offences. It has not been implemented. I do not understand why they were allowed to come here. Too many dangerous hooligans have reached the Continent.
The UEFA executive committee said in a statement on Sunday:
The actions over the last 48 hours have left a scar on the tournament and left us wondering why more was not done to prevent them from travelling … Other governments have shown that it can be done and we call on the UK government to take the necessary steps as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this section first.

Mr. Joe Ashton: I suppose that it is all the fault of the Government.

Miss Widdecombe: Quite right.
Let us take the word of the chairman of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, Mr. Ian Todd, who has said:
The government is struggling to recover from a situation they made for themselves when they chickened out of introducing that legislation,
or even—dare I say it—the word of a man who knows both the worlds of politics and football, and who has already been quoted in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant):
Straw passed the buck to the Belgians and they are rightly furious.
If the Government had done more, then we wouldn't be in the position we are today.
The Home Secretary has no one but himself to blame for that catalogue of condemnation. He cannot blame the Opposition—indeed, he should be congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on ensuring that the House had the issue of known but unconvicted hooligans brought to its attention.
The Home Secretary has had more than a year to introduce the legislation that he is now spinning as a massive crackdown on hooliganism, but it comes far too late. In the Government's response to the consultation on football-related legislation, published on 31 March last year, it was stated:
On recommendation 24—providing a power for the court to issue restriction orders on known hooligans without conviction—the Government sees merit in the proposal but requires further consideration on ECHR implications before taking the matter forward,
yet in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, dated 29 April, the Home Secretary said:
I have given careful consideration to whether the issue of domestic and international bans without conviction would in principle be compatible with our obligations under ECHR and the EU Treaty. I have concluded that they would.
The only identified obstacle to the Government bringing forward the proposals was overcome, by his own admission, more than a year ago. However, the matter has not been taken forward as the Government said that it would be.
Only yesterday, in his statement, did the Home Secretary finally undertake to move forward on the issue—and even then he was equivocal. He had the opportunity to legislate in 1998. He had the opportunity to legislate in 1999; that was when we brought forward those proposals. He could have introduced his own Bill in the current Session. We would have supported him. Even now, I repeat my offer of yesterday: if he wishes to table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill in another place, the Opposition will support him.

Mr. Simon Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during the passage of my Bill, I worked closely with the Home Office? I can confirm that legal advice was taken on the compatibility with the European convention on human rights and it was found that neither of the aims of the Bill would be incompatible. Although I took the decision not to proceed with the legislation on unconvicted hooligans, the Government desperately wanted that legislation and saw my Bill as the first legislative vehicle to do it. When they accepted that I was not going to press that, it was my firm understanding from discussions with Ministers that they would do it as soon as parliamentary time was available to them.

Miss Widdecombe: That is my understanding from the information that my hon. Friend and others have given


me. All I can say is that, if that was the understanding, it has not been honoured, but no doubt we will hear more about that from the Home Secretary.
Will the Home Secretary now, finally, institute measures to restrict known but unconvicted hooligans from travelling to matches to cause trouble—measures for which the Opposition have been calling for more than two years? Will he at least acknowledge that that would have the merit of convincing UEFA and the international community that we are as serious about dealing with our hooligans as other countries are about dealing with theirs, and that it would at least provide us with a defence to the threat that we now face of being expelled from the tournament if there is any more trouble?
I am sorry that Labour Members consider that funny. I do not think that our team, after the way in which they played, consider it funny. I do not think that the numerous fans who went there simply to enjoy a game of football consider it funny. I do not think that law-abiding mortals who were caught up in all that trouble consider it funny. I do not think that other Governments consider it funny. Let us place it on the record, however, that Labour Back Benchers on the Government's second Bench think that it is hilariously funny.
Will the Home Secretary now consider extending restrictions on attending international matches to those hooligans who are subject only to domestic banning orders? Will he also take a long, hard look at the sanctions that the United Kingdom can impose on hooligans and at whether they are adequate?
We should be looking, in the long-term, to the 2002 world cup qualifying campaign, in which there will be further England-Germany matches. In September 2001, England will travel to Germany to play in what may well be a crucial qualifier. We can only hope that whoever is Home Secretary at that time—I do not believe that it will be the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues—will not have to make further statements to the House about hooligan violence that could and should have been averted.
Two years ago, and one year ago, we were warning about Euro 2000. Today, I warn the Home Secretary about the 2002 world cup, and I hope that he will take that rather more seriously than he took previous warnings. Meanwhile, the Opposition will give the Government our full support in planning and legislating to close the loopholes for that campaign. However, on the evidence of Euro 2000, the Government's track record is worryingly patchy.
The Government's record of inaction has been roundly and rightly criticised across the board. Yesterday, the Home Secretary all but admitted that his policy had failed and that he would have to close the stable door after the horse had well and truly gone. However, he cannot say that he was not warned.
The Home Secretary must take responsibility. He must take responsibility if we should, heaven forbid, be expelled from the tournament. He must take responsibility for doing nothing. He must take responsibility for the way in which our name has become mud because of the way that the matter has been handled. He is a Home Secretary who should now come to the Dispatch Box to apologise, and he should do so without any reservation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
wholly deplores the violence in Belgium during the Euro 2000 competition perpetrated by United Kingdom citizens, and condemns the irresponsibility and criminality of those involved; welcomes the good co-operation between the British police and National Criminal Intelligence Service with the law enforcement agencies in Belgium, the Netherlands and France by which a large number of individuals with banning orders from football-related convictions against them have been prevented from travelling to Belgium and the Netherlands; strongly supports the many measures already taken by Her Majesty's Government, the police and other agencies; and endorses the further measures announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday.
As I made clear yesterday in my statement to the House, we condemn unreservedly the outrageous behaviour over the past weekend, in Brussels and Charleroi, of the so-called English football fans who brought such shame to our country and to our national game. The nation's sense of outrage at the disgraceful behaviour of a boorish minority of our fellow countrymen has not diminished in the past 24 hours; nor has our apprehension that their misdeeds could still ruin the pleasure which many of us anticipate from further English success in Euro 2000.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for the tribute that she paid to our police forces and police officers who are working in Europe and to our football authorities.
I believe that all true football fans can only be horrified that, once again, events off the field have so overshadowed the performance of the English football team on it. The Government understand and share the anger and frustration of the football authorities in Europe.
The action that UEFA has now taken in response to the violence in Brussels and Charleroi is, I believe, unprecedented. England is, effectively, on a yellow card. Some may feel that UEFA's action is too harsh, seeking to penalise a nation for the misdemeanours of a small minority. I do not share that view. UEFA itself has a responsibility to its host country. The people of Belgium and the Netherlands were entitled to expect a festival of football. When instead the inhabitants of two Belgian cities were subjected to drunken chanting, frequent outbursts of racism, intimidatory behaviour, and then violence, UEFA felt that it had a responsibility to act.
There are those who say that English supporters are not the only ones who have misbehaved, or who claim that they were provoked. Of course, it is true that international hooliganism is not an exclusively English phenomenon. Other football supporters misbehave, but none have disgraced themselves with the monotonous regularity of so-called England followers. I remind the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that football hooliganism did not start in 1997, but has been a serious problem that has concerned successive Governments over at least three decades.
As I also said in my statement yesterday, the first major disturbances involving England supporters took place in Brussels last Friday, 16 June, and the next day further disturbances occurred in Charleroi as well as in Brussels.

Miss Anne McIntosh: While I do not disagree with the Home Secretary's sentiments about


UEFA's action, can he assist the House in understanding why UEFA refused to act after the death of two Leeds United fans in Turkey following a match there?

Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Lady's point, but I cannot assist the House because I do not have access to the internal considerations of UEFA. If she wishes me to do so, I shall take the matter up with UEFA via our football authorities.

Mr. Banks: Of course no one blames UEFA for its rightful anger—we all feel it. However, it is extraordinary that, before the press conference, the chairman and the chief executive of the Football Association were not given an opportunity to discuss the matter. There comes a point when one feels that an element of politics has entered the situation, and that would be disastrous for the English game—and for world football.

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and he has much greater knowledge than I do of the internal workings of international and European football associations. However, the House will agree that it is unruly so-called English supporters who have provided the occasion for the decisions that UEFA has made so far and of which it has warned us.
The latest figures that we have are that 916 British citizens have been arrested in the course of the tournament, many in disturbances in Brussels and Charleroi last Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The majority of those arrests were what the Belgians call "administrative arrests", with a great many people being picked up for failure to carry a passport or other identification. In such cases, no charges have followed, but many—although by no means all—of the individuals concerned have been subject to deportation. Some 464 of them have so far been returned to the United Kingdom, being flown back either to Manchester or Stansted airports. Some of the remainder are likely to be deported direct to the UK, but many have been released without any further charge in Belgium, and that includes a majority of those arrested in Charleroi. The British consul in Brussels knows so far of six—of the more than 900 arrested—who are subject to criminal proceedings in Belgium, although that figure may rise.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is it true that a substantial number of the more than 400 people who have been deported have criminal convictions?

Mr. Straw: The information I was given this morning showed that 16 of those 464 were on the list of 1,000 provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service of known football hooligans or those with football-related convictions. An analysis is being made, and I shall provide it to the House when it is available, but it is true that a substantial proportion of the total number arrested had criminal convictions against them that were not related to football. In order to put that into perspective, however, I should also like to explain—I shall provide more details in a moment—that a third of all young men have a criminal conviction of one kind or another by the age of 30. That is a dreadful commentary on our society,

but it happens to be the case. A quarter of a group born in 1968 who were subject to analysis had convictions by the age of 24.

Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Home Secretary feel that it would have been franker and better had he made that clear in his statement yesterday? As it is in the press this morning, I assume that it was in the knowledge of the Home Office when he made the statement.

Mr. Straw: Had I had the information, I would have made it available. I have never sought not to make available information of that kind. The fact that it is publicly known that a third of all people have convictions by the age of 30 would have led people to say that, of any random sample of 1,000 men picked up anywhere in the country, at least a third were likely to have had criminal convictions.

Mr. John Bercow: Of the 97 Britons so far subject to international banning orders, how many are known to have breached those orders? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what assessment he has made of the criteria for, and of the resources allocated to, surveillance operations on suspected football hooligans?

Mr. Straw: I think the total, which I was given this morning, of those subject to international banning orders is 99. We have checked, and the latest information is that 94 of them have fully complied with their reporting conditions. The police are making inquiries about the whereabouts of the other five. They have committed an arrestable offence of failure to report, and the police will be following that up.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer with regard to surveillance resources. I shall be happy to write to him or see whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State can provide the information when he winds up. We have sought to ensure that the police have adequate surveillance methods and equipment, and also, of course, that they have adequate powers.

Mr. Burns: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the criminal records of a number of people in Europe at present, will he reconsider the answer he gave me yesterday? Does not this new fact of which the Home Secretary is aware make the case that if we had had banning orders for unconvicted football hooligans before Euro 2000, we could have stopped most of them leaving this country for the tournament?

Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall come on to who said what to whom during the proceedings on his Bill if he wishes. But the central truth, which means that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was almost entirely off the point in her speech, is that the police have a list of 500 or so against whom there are banning orders of one kind or another. They include the international banning orders that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned, of which there are 99. The other 400 are made up of other kinds of banning orders; the hon. Gentleman will know that there are three kinds.
Those names have been provided to the Belgian and Dutch authorities. In addition, the names of 500 other hooligans known to have football-related convictions


against them have also been provided to the Belgians and the Dutch. Where there has been an attempt by individuals on either list to travel to Belgium or the Netherlands, we have, thanks to a very effective spotting system, provided that information to the Belgian and Dutch authorities, and those people have been turned round at the port of entry.
Of course I accept that we would have preferred to have on the statute book the full range of orders available through the vehicle of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). We have never pretended otherwise. However, the work that has been done means that we have achieved by other methods the ends sought—by the hon. Gentleman and by the Government—in that Bill, and that the people involved have been dealt with effectively. As I shall explain, the problem is that the football-related violence that has happened in Belgium is caused by people who are not on those lists.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to the central point in this matter. Millions of people believe that that central point is the appalling statistic that my right hon. Friend produced—that one third of all young men under 30 in the United Kingdom have been the subject of a criminal charge. That shows what the values of the 1980s and 1990s did to a generation of young people. They are the children of Thatcher, and we are paying the price for the damage done in those years.

Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall give my hon. Friend and the House the precise information on that matter. For a cohort of men born in 1968, 26 per cent. had convictions by the age of 24, and 10 per cent. had convictions for violence against the person, sexual offences or robbery. In comparison, among men born in 1953, 34 per cent. had some convictions by the age of 40, and 10.5 per cent. had convictions for violence, sexual offences or robbery.
In the interests of complete accuracy, I must tell the House that a note just passed to me states that the total number of people subject to international football banning orders is 101, not 99.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the underlying issue, but I wish to return to a matter of fact. Given the fear of violence in Belgium or Holland, will the Home Secretary say whether the Home Office considered intervening to prevent people with previous convictions for violence—in the past seven years, for example—from travelling on the basis that there was reasonable cause to believe that an offence might be committed? Would it not have been possible under our existing law for our police to stop such people leaving the country, or for the Belgian or Dutch police to stop them entering their countries? That approach would cover a range of people who may turn out to have been involved in the violence and to have been sent back from those countries, but who have never had football-related offences recorded against them.

Mr. Straw: A good deal of attention has been given to that matter, and to the provision of intelligence about people who were identified, through being questioned at ports, as having previous convictions that were not football-related. That information has been provided to the Belgian and Dutch authorities. In the main, those authorities have decided that their laws mean that it is not possible for them routinely to turn those people back.
I of course considered carefully whether powers existed in the United Kingdom that would have allowed people seeking to leave the country to be peremptorily turned back on the basis that it appeared that they might cause trouble abroad. However, the House knows that powers to restrain United Kingdom citizens from leaving the UK are not available to any Secretary of State. Whether such powers should exist is a very large question, as they would give individual police officers huge discretion.
A point that I have raised repeatedly in discussions with my Belgian and Dutch counterparts is that, in Europe and around the world, it is always easier peremptorily to refuse entry of a non-national to a country than it is to prevent the exit of national from that country. It is routine, on my direct signature or by delegated authority, for all sorts of people to be refused entry to the United Kingdom because their presence is not regarded as conducive to the public good or because they fall foul of other criteria. We hope very much that the Belgian and Dutch authorities will follow suit.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and hope that I can be helpful to him. I remember from my dim and distant days as a law student, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does as well, that under the civil jurisdiction, judges of the High Court can in civil cases issue orders called ne exeat regno, which prevent people without criminal convictions but who have something to do with a civil case from leaving the kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the Law Officers to see whether that power is available to be used in the circumstances that we are discussing, and whether it is available to be used either civilly or in the criminal jurisdiction in the circumstances that he and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have just been discussing? It may be worth looking into.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his recollection of his law lectures. I am afraid that I do not recall that particular aspect and, as I have been asked to offer apologies, I will offer an apology about that. However, I will certainly take up the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
Given that passports are issued under the royal prerogative, two years ago we looked carefully at the possibility of withdrawing the facility of a passport by the royal prerogative as well—in other words, by Executive fiat. However, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, the strong advice that we received, with which it was impossible to disagree—apart from the fact that there were major issues of principle—was that as Parliament had already intervened to modify the exercise of that royal prerogative by, for example, other statutory measures to restrict the exit of people from this country, the use of the prerogative for such purposes was not possible; there was also a query as to whether it was desirable.
In the 1970s and 1980s, this country suffered terribly from criminality and hooliganism in football grounds and away from those grounds but in the United Kingdom. Over time, a combination of increasingly effective police action, better design and security in the grounds and a greater acceptance of responsibility by the clubs has led to a great diminution in trouble here at home.
It has also meant that our police service has built up unrivalled expertise in dealing with the hooligan problem in this country. That expertise, relying on the traditional British policing virtues of careful targeting and careful planning, has many times shown its value in the course of joint operations such as the one put in place in this country for the Euro 96 tournament.
Last November, I established a co-ordinating group to make preparations for Euro 2000. That group brought together officials from Government, with representatives of the football authorities, the police service and NCIS. It also co-ordinated the efforts being made with the Belgian and Dutch authorities to ensure effective co-operation in the run-up to, and during, the tournament.
I have had many meetings with my Belgian and Dutch counterparts over the past few months. I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Belgian and Dutch Ministers in February, and I have in recent days had regular contact, in person and on the telephone, with Klaus de Vries, the Dutch Minister of the Interior, and Antoine Duquesne, the Belgian Minister of the Interior.
The measures in place are the most extensive ever made prior to any similar major sporting tournament abroad. Central to this strategy has been effective police co-operation between ourselves and the police in Belgium and Holland. As a result, the Belgian and Dutch police sought and received from our police service the most detailed and extensive operational advice about arrangements that they were putting in place for Euro 2000.
As well as providing operational advice, British police officers have been deployed in Belgium and Holland, and on Eurostar, to act as spotters to help police operations here and abroad. NCIS has collated details of individuals convicted of football-related offences in the past—and those whom it has suspected of causing trouble. The list of names, as I told the House, was passed to its counterparts in France, as well as those in Holland and Belgium, well before the tournament began.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, because he has been very generous in giving way. Most of the 460-odd people whom he described as having been administratively deported will presumably not have been charged with any offence, and will therefore have no record in the future. Will the Home Secretary say whether the Belgian authorities, in conjunction with the co-operation that he has described, are continuing their inquiries against any of those 460-odd people, and whether any further charges are likely to arise?

Mr. Straw: I understand that no charges have been laid at any stage against any of those 464, which is why they were subject to administrative deportation. We have only the barest details—if this needs to be added to, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State does so when he replies—of the site at which they were subject to arrest. We have no further details. There is no evidence of any kind that could be used in any court at all—

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment, I shall answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
The hon. Member for Cotswold may have heard this morning, as I did, the police chief from Belgium. I am trying to turn up the transcript. He may have heard Colonel Blickie answering a question from Mr. Edward Stourton on "Today". Mr. Stourton asked:
Do you accept that some of those who were arrested were innocent?
Colonel Blickie replied:
Yes of course, yes of course.
Mr. Stourton asked:
Do you regret that?
The colonel replied:
Of fact, a fact you regret it that's the problem. When we are doing our operations in the street, it's rather difficult to make the difference between those who committed some crimes in the street and those who were together with them and did nothing.
He added that people should have kept away from potential trouble.

Mr. Fabricant: On that point, and further to it, will the Home Secretary be making representations to the Belgian police, to request copies of video tapes that they will have taken, to add to the files of NCIS? Were members of the British police or their agents in Belgium at that time making their own video tapes? If such video tapes will be made available, will the right hon. Gentleman eventually introduce Government legislation so that we can impose banning orders on those individuals or withdraw their passports—powers for which we have been asking?

Mr. Straw: I understand that NCIS will be seeking whatever evidence it can secure from the Belgian authorities. British police officers have certainly been acting as spotters in Belgium as well as in the Netherlands, and have been present in the bi-national police control operation.
As I have already said, the majority of those arrested in Charleroi were not deported. They were released without any further action or charge being taken. We must accept that—as I shall be making clear later—different police services operate in a different way.
I was explaining about the lists with which we were provided by NCIS. They included individuals subject to international banning orders, those subject to domestic banning orders and—to deal directly with the point relating to the civil order which we had hoped to see provided for in the Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—the 500 people who have been convicted of football-related offences in the past but who are not subject to banning orders of any sort.
We asked the authorities overseas to refuse entry to Belgium and Holland to all those on the lists during the duration of the tournament, and that operation has largely been effective. Of the 464 individuals so far deported, having been arrested in Charleroi and Brussels last weekend, the latest information of which I am aware is that only 16 were suspected football hooligans and one was subject to a domestic banning order.
We can debate what happened to the Bill of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford until the cows come home. The reality is that the same effect as the effect of including provisions for such civil orders in that Bill, which we wanted and which many Opposition Members—although not all—wanted has been achieved by another route.
A larger question is what to do with those who have not been the subject of football-related convictions but who have other convictions of violence. That is a new issue with which we must deal.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I should like to make some progress. I shall then give way to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench.
Much has been made of the efforts of the German authorities and police to prevent known hooligans from travelling to Belgium and or the Netherlands. I applaud the commitment of my counterpart in Germany—Interior Minister Otto Schilly—and his colleagues in the action that they have taken. There are, however, two points of difference for the House to note. First, each police service in the European Union operates in a wholly different judicial framework and has a different framework for the accountability of the police. The police in one jurisdiction may long have had powers of arrest and detention that may appear peremptory and unacceptable in other jurisdictions. Secondly, we are not the only nation to suffer football hooliganism, but our hooliganism is different both in its scale and in its provenance.
In an interesting report on Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning, German hooliganism was described as "highly organised". Part of our hooliganism is also highly organised and premeditated. Where that is the case, our police have been able to take effective action to prevent those involved from travelling. More than 200 people arrested in Charleroi were UK citizens, but I remind the House that 130 German citizens were arrested too. The efforts of the German police have not stopped the travel from Germany of those who have subsequently got into trouble.
The difference with our country is this: the evidence suggests that a significant part of English hooliganism abroad is much more difficult to detect and prevent in advance because it is not organised, and nor is much of it specifically premeditated. That does not excuse hooliganism one bit, but it does pose much greater difficulties in dealing with it. The dismal truth is that the vast majority of those arrested during last weekend's outrageous events did not have previous convictions for football-related offences, and nor were they suspected of having been so involved. That is perhaps the most depressing aspect of what happened in Belgium. The problems were not created by a tiny minority of well-organised, hard-core thugs.

Mr. Heald: Does the Home Secretary intend to introduce legislation to enable international banning orders to be made if there is evidence that someone who has not necessarily been convicted is a risk? The Home Secretary said that he would have liked such provision introduced in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), so when will he do it himself?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall make my view clear during my speech.

Mr. Banks: I by no means seek to excuse unacceptable and inexcusable behaviour, but I can back up my

right hon. Friend's point. Is he aware that judges in Argentina recently closed down the football season twice because of deaths by shooting inside and outside football grounds? That sort of thing happens, tragically, around the world, but we tend not to read about it quite so much in our newspapers.

Mr. Straw: Of course a great many countries have serious hooliganism at home. On the whole, thanks to the very good efforts of our police forces and greatly improved acceptance of responsibility among the clubs, that is generally a thing of the past here.

Mr. Burns: Will the Home Secretary clear up one point beyond doubt? How many of the British subjects arrested in Belgium and Holland rather than turned around at the port of entry have convictions not for football-related offences, but for other matters?

Mr. Straw: I cannot give the House the precise figure, but it is a significant minority—somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent., I understand. I have already made that point about three times, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a further point about it I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful. The point that I am trying to make is that, as about 35 per cent. of those people had criminal records—albeit not football-related—we could, if we had had the power to withdraw passports from hooligans unconvicted of football-related offences, probably have removed their passports because the courts might have been satisfied that they might offend abroad.

Mr. Straw: That proposition needs thought, for it goes way beyond anything advanced in any part of the House during the passage of the hon. Gentleman's Bill—which was about taking powers in respect of individuals convicted of football-related offences.
We have to be careful about proportionality. Removing a person's passport in any circumstances is a significant sanction. The fact that a substantial minority of those arrested in Charleroi have criminal convictions should come as no surprise. because it simply reflects the proportion of men aged 30 in the population as a whole who have convictions—although I accept some may be serious. My central point is that a majority of those arrested had no convictions. Those persons arrested in Belgium did not, overwhelmingly, have football-related convictions. Nor were they subject to banning orders. No legislation predicated on stopping or preventing convicted and suspected football hooligans would have made much difference to the number who travelled abroad. That is a fundamental shortcoming of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
As I made clear yesterday, the Government are committed to examining the powers and arrangements for dealing with football hooliganism in the light of events. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, implemented last September, followed widespread consultation about the adequacy of football-related legislation—which had grown up piecemeal over the previous decade. None the less, that statute has limitations. When we have a serious debate, we can go into who said what to whom at the time. The fact is that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst


(Mr. Forth) accepts that he said things in opposition to the propositions of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—as did other hon. Members. The right hon. Lady said that opposition did not come "exclusively" from Conservative Members. I noted with care her use of that adverb—but significant opposition came from Conservative Members and was the reason for the legislation's limitations.
Although there are 101 recipients of international football banning orders, there are 400 domestic banning orders in force. The public may see no reason for allowing a person on whom a court has seen fit to impose a domestic ban to attend football matches abroad. I share that view. Almost certainly the right way to proceed is to merge international and domestic banning orders—but I will consider representations from right hon. and hon. Members and the police before reaching a final view.

Mr. Pike: In addition to the two categories my right hon. Friend specified, would it not be a good idea to ask all the premier division and Nationwide clubs? Almost every club has a list of undesirable people whom they do not want at their grounds—not all of whom have been in court.

Mr. Straw: I cannot speak for Burnley but a large amount of information—[Interruption.] I am told that the Prime Minister's press secretary speaks for Burnley.
As to spinning, I may tell the right hon. Lady that I am the most unspun Minister I know. The only spinning in which I am ever involved is at 8 o'clock on Monday mornings, in the gym—when I have a spinning lesson that goes on for three quarters of an hour.

Mr. Bercow: Where?

Mr. Straw: On the spinning bikes.

Mr. Bercow: In which gym?

Mr. Straw: In the House of Commons gym. If anybody wishes to be visually offended at that time of the morning, they are welcome to join me.

Mr. Ashton: I am a former director of a premier league club, so may I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Data Protection Acts inhibit the exchange of information tremendously? As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, every club has about 50 or 60 names and addresses of the people who have been arrested, evicted or convicted. The clubs are forbidden from trading such information because of the Data Protection Acts, and the police are forbidden from letting them have such information. If my right hon. Friend could slightly amend the Data Protection Acts to allow for the trading of that information so as to prevent crimes or hooliganism, that would be very helpful.

Mr. Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. There are many myths about the Data Protection Acts and we are seeking to deal with them. We sought to deal with them by an amendment to the law in section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure that there can be proper data sharing not only by

law-enforcement agencies, but by others involved in the prevention and detection of crime. I have talked directly to Elizabeth France, the Data Protection Commissioner, about the issue and she has made the point that the data protection legislation is there not to prevent the transmission of data, but to regulate the circumstances in which it takes place.
I am happy to take the matter up with my hon. Friend's club and with the football league and the premier league. As I understand it, there is no reason at all why such information should not be made available to the police. There is a different issue about whether the police can make information available in return, but the purpose will be served if information is made available to the police.
As I have told the House, only a handful of the 464 people who have so far been deported from Belgium were known to the National Criminal Intelligence Service as confirmed or suspected hooligans. That again raises the point about the limitations of such orders. Even in those cases, it cannot be assumed—not least given what Colonel Blickie of the Belgian police said this morning—that the evidence against them would have been sufficient to satisfy a court that a banning order ought to be issued to the civil standard of proof.
As I have also told the House, NCIS is carefully analysing the lists of those deported to check on previous convictions and on occupations better to profile the kind of individual who gets involved in hooliganism.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once and other Members wish to speak.
With the benefit of experience, we shall sit down with the police, NCIS and others to see what further legislative and other changes may be needed in the future. As I made clear yesterday, the disgraceful scenes that we have seen over the past few days require a more immediate response. That is why I announced yesterday further measures to put pressure on would-be hooligans.
First, we have taken steps to ensure as far as possible that none of the several hundred people who have been deported from Belgium in recent days may slip back into that country or the Netherlands without the knowledge of the authorities. We have intensified the scrutiny of passengers leaving ports and airports en route for France as well as for Belgium over the critical period before tonight's match at Charleroi.

Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the point that Eddie Curtis, who is the head of the anti-hooligan spotting team, has said that most of the undesirables that they do not want in Belgium and Holland are actually there already. Is that right?

Mr. Straw: I have not seen that remark from Mr. Curtis. However, I repeat that my information, which has been provided by NCIS this morning, is that, of the 464 who were deported—by definition, much more information is known about them than about those who may happen to be in Charleroi—only a handful were known to NCIS as confirmed or suspected hooligans.
Secondly, I have asked that contact be made by our police with all those deported over the past few days to warn them not to try to return to Belgium or the Netherlands and to ensure that they understand the likely serious consequences of their returning. Thirdly, building on the significant British presence already in Belgium, we have asked whether there is any way in which the operational value of the British police's contribution to the Belgian operation can further be enhanced.
Fourthly, we have suggested that the Belgian and Dutch authorities mark the passports of the people whom they deport.
Fifthly, we have asked the Belgian authorities to take action to restrict the consumption of alcohol which, in the end, is a matter for the municipal authorities. However, I understand that the mayor of Charleroi has decided in response to the hooliganism to prohibit drinking in cafés in the main square. I am glad that he has done that and am grateful to him.
Finally, more can be done to deter football violence overseas by bringing it home to people that the consequence could well be expulsion for life from the ground of the team that they support. I was glad to report yesterday that the Football Association and premier league clubs have decided that any supporter convicted of hooliganism, or against whom there is good evidence of hooliganism, should be banned for life from attending football matches in England.
The events of last weekend serve as a shocking reminder of the potential for serious disorder from young men who have attached themselves as supporters of the England team. We must take action to deal with that and are doing so. Only when the nation can feel as proud of all our fellow England supporters as we did of our team on Saturday can we be confident that we have defeated the dreadful criminal scourge of English hooliganism.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is obviously good to have the opportunity afforded by this timely debate. I join colleagues from the other parties in congratulating the England team on their success last Saturday, wishing them well in their match this evening and thanking them for the manifestly good way in which the team and the management have behaved and dealt with the press. Indeed, they have represented England as well as anyone could have wished and have done us proud.
We clearly share in the embarrassment, agree with the condemnation and share the regret that, by and large, it is English supporters and British citizens in Belgium and Holland who have brought discredit to those who follow the game. It is a tragedy that what should be a festival of football and one of the great pleasures of the sporting season has been tarnished again and that England has to take collective responsibility for that.
The central question has already been referred to, and involves men almost exclusively, predominantly English men. Why do so many young English men display unacceptably loutish and intolerant behaviour, not just in connection with football games, but regularly in so many places? Why do we often see drunken and arrogant behaviour, which is frequently racist, xenophobic and intolerant on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights in towns and cities throughout the country? Why do so many

people make a pastime of going away regularly for loutish weekends on the British coast and behave as if continuing a stag night? Why do we often export such behaviour to Mediterranean and other resorts, where being loutish, boorish, crude, offensive and vulgar is regarded as an acceptable part of holiday culture? People behave like that regardless of the effect on their hosts and other visitors. That behaviour is no different in connection with football than it is in Malaga, Ibiza, Ayia Napa and other coastal resorts of the Mediterranean or, to be honest, Blackpool, Bournemouth and other coastal resorts in this country.
We are focusing on a particular sporting event but, unless we get to grips with this issue, we are leaping on a passing bandwagon and ignoring our wider responsibility.

Mr. Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the central question. Surely, that question is why are only three Conservative Members taking part in this Opposition day debate on the important issue of football violence?

Mr. Hughes: Though not central, that is surprising, given that this is one of some 14 days of the year on which Conservative Members choose the subject for debate.
The other paradox is that many of the people who get caught up in this hooliganism live a Jekyll and Hyde existence, and to be fair, the Home Secretary suggested that too, in his speech. From Monday to Friday, they do a decent job, work hard and behave as respectable members of society, and from knocking-off time on Friday, they adopt another life style. They are hooligans not all week, but on weekends and on holiday, where some of their family, colleagues and friends cannot see them.

Mr. David Heath: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the apologists for such behaviour do nobody any favours by suggesting that it is the fault of the police in the country concerned for being over-enthusiastic or under-enthusiastic in policing events, or—this point ties in with what my hon. Friend is saying—that boys will be boys and that alcohol-fuelled loutishness is acceptable under any circumstances?

Mr. Hughes: I agree, and I shall return to that point in a moment.
I declare my interest as someone who, like the Home Secretary, goes to football matches regularly. I go to my local club, Millwall, which has also had problems. It has worked extremely hard and successfully and has almost entirely solved those problems, which is to its credit because the club's tradition was not one to be proud of. Like many colleagues, I have seen and heard bad behaviour in football grounds. We need to be clear that such behaviour is often accompanied by the language of racism, homophobia and sexism.
Those antagonistic, aggressive attitudes are often a short step from physical violence. The people who will use such language are often those who, let us be blunt, are violent at home, to their partners and children, and elsewhere. I hope that we will return soon to that wider agenda because we must take care to focus on dealing with those endemic fundamental problems, which the


Government, to their credit, are seeking to tackle. I am not especially critical of the Government on this issue, but we have not rooted out such behaviour, and we will not root it out by having this debate or by introducing legislation that focuses only on people who go to football matches or on football supporters abroad.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend. Parliament spends a great deal of time discussing drugs and drug-related crime, of which there is a huge amount. I have always argued that the fewer drugs—whether NHS-supplied, legal or illegal—there are in society, the better. The fewer people addicted to substances that vary their natural behaviour, the better. We have often concentrated on a range of drugs, particularly illegal drugs, but not on alcohol. It is important for us to realise that, whereas roughly two thirds of property-related crime is linked to illegal drugs, many offences against the person are alcohol related. They occur in the street, after closing time, and at home. We need to put higher up the British political agenda the issue of how we are to deal with alcohol-related crime. I am not being critical of the Government for not recognising that issue, but I want there to be parity between the responses to alcohol-linked crime and crime that is linked to other drugs, because alcohol is a drug as well.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have held two significant seminars on alcohol and crime, which were chaired by myself and involved all the relevant organisations, and we are now developing detailed action plans to deal with precisely those issues? The hon. Gentleman's remarks are absolutely right, and the matter is a priority for the Government.

Mr. Hughes: To be honest, I was not aware that there had been two seminars. I do not think that I was invited; if I had been, I might have come. I am happy to discuss the issues with the Minister, in a seminar or elsewhere. I hope that I was not unfair to the Government. I said that they recognised the issue, and we need collectively to highlight it because so many crimes are alcohol related.

Mr. David Drew: Obviously, the consistent theme is the role of alcohol. Is it worth us saying to all the authorities that it may be good to maximise television and other revenues, but they ought to consider changing the time of matches because the ability to drink all day and all night is always the cause of all the aggravation?

Mr. Hughes: That is a good point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has just told me that derby games are often arranged to accommodate that. Again, I declare an interest: I was brought up the son of a brewer and my grandad was a brewer. I am not against alcohol. Indeed, my mother's pension would not be paid if it were not for the profits of the Whitbread brewery company.
The problem is that we in this country often do not manage to combine the responsible use of alcohol with normal civilised behaviour. A couple of weeks ago, I spent two days in France. I was in Avignon on a Saturday night and there was no loutish behaviour. People were enjoying their evening out; they were having meals and

drinking sensibly. There is a cultural problem in this country that allows the normal use of alcohol to spin over into completely irresponsible activity.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I do not criticise the Dutch and Belgians for responding significantly differently, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn); there is a quiet moral story in that access to low alcohol beer and less dangerous drugs was perhaps a far more helpful combination at Eindhoven in Holland than access to the stronger beer on which the Belgians pride themselves and no drugs in Charleroi. It is good that the mayor of Charleroi has said that he will restrict the sale of alcohol. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) says, we must always ensure that people are not encouraged to drink more than they would otherwise or to spend the time waiting for kick-off drinking.
Another important question, which has not been mentioned, is that of liberty but, in this context, it is not entirely straightforward. I will defend—perhaps not quite to the death, although I hope that I would—people's right to walk the streets freely if they have no conviction preventing them from travelling. Indeed, there is a duty in the European Union to allow people to travel freely. We are, however, permitted to curb access to private venues. Football clubs are private venues, and international football matches are also private in that sense. Therefore, it is entirely possible, if it is thought appropriate, to curb liberties involving fee-paying activities—whether going to bars to drink or going to football matches to watch football.
We must be careful always to distinguish between restricting the liberties of people to walk the streets, travel freely and live their lives, and particular activities such as going to a football match, which is not a right and can be subject to conditions, just as driving is not a right and can be subject to conditions. What action should be taken? I presume that that is the question that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) wanted to put on the agenda.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday or the day before, the first responsibility is that of the individual. We can legislate day in and day out but, until individuals realise that they must take responsibility for their actions, we have not got the message across. In addition, it is the responsibility of the family, the friend, the colleague or whoever to say, "That is not acceptable." It is their responsibility to restrain the friend who might get out of hand, or to say, "I am not going with you if you do that." It is their responsibility to say, "I think you have had enough to drink." Those in any group have a responsibility to manage one another, but I am afraid that, increasingly, we have a society in which far too many people walk away from that responsibility. It is sometimes difficult, painful and dangerous, but we must stand up for people's right to walk the streets in safety—a phrase that the Prime Minister has also used. That means that people may have to intervene to stop someone else behaving badly.
What should Parliament do? This morning, The Independent published a useful table in which the relevant laws of the 16 countries participating in Euro 2000 were summarised. It made it clear that, apart from Germany, we already have the toughest legislation. Therefore, the suggestion that we have no decent


legislation is based on a false premise. We have much legislation and we have done a lot. We should remember that recent Governments of both parties have made progress. My colleagues and I support the idea that we should move as quickly as possible to ensure that all such bans apply domestically and internationally; there is no logic in simply saying that people cannot go to a match at home. We support the Home Secretary in wanting to go down that road.
It is also clear to us that there are some things that we should not do. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who looks after sport for our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who did this job before me, and I have all made it clear, in letters to the Home Secretary and in other ways, that we do not believe that it is either consistent with the British tradition or appropriate or proportional in the circumstances to legislate to take from people without convictions the right to travel. In passing, let me say that I am sure that the House feels great solidarity with my right hon. Friend after the tragic loss of his son last week. He would otherwise probably have been with us today. We would oppose legislation that would take away that right. There is no consensus for it, it would be wrong to assume that Parliament would willingly go down that road and there would be opposition from those on the Tory and Labour Benches and on our Benches. I am not sure that such a Bill would get through the other place, even if it got through this place.
We must be clear that there is legislation that we could enact and legislation that we should not enact, but, as the Home Secretary said yesterday—I take his side rather than that of his Conservative shadow—even if we had pursued the proposals that have been made over the past two years, they would not have dealt with the majority of the people who caused trouble in recent days. It is no good pretending that the proposals would have been a solution, as many of those involved either had no convictions or had no relevant convictions. That is why I asked the Home Secretary whether we should also consider those with convictions for violence, not just those with football-related convictions.
What action should others take? We made the point yesterday that the Belgian and the Dutch authorities could take certain additional action. In addition to limiting the availability of alcohol, the Home Secretary may have pursued the suggestion of cordoning off various areas, not only around a football stadium, but, if necessary, around the squares in Brussels or elsewhere. All that we can do is make suggestions, as the Dutch and Belgian Governments are sovereign, but such action could be carried out perfectly legally. The police in this country regularly cordon off areas and allow through only those with a right to go through, such as people who live and work in those areas, people with tickets for the match, the teams and their supporters.
I must refer to our police. I understand that it is easier to stop people coming into this country than to stop people leaving, but it seems entirely consistent with the law for our police or police in other countries to be entitled to apprehend a person whom they have reasonable cause to believe might commit an offence and, in this example, to prevent that person from travelling. On that basis, I assume that the Dutch and the Belgians can stop specific people from coming into their countries. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister of State, Home Office,

the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—if I might have his attention for a second—would confirm that our authorities are empowered under the present law to stop people leaving if there is reasonable cause to believe that they might commit offences and cause trouble. We could question someone with a conviction for a violent offence committed during the past seven years—not a spent conviction—and ask for guarantees. We could also even say, "Sorry, we are not allowing you to go any further."
Yesterday, in summary, I raised the point about spotters with the Home Secretary, simply on the basis of information from people who were in Belgium last weekend. I am told by somebody who works in this place—a perfectly responsible adult who went to the game—that many people on the train from Charleroi to Brussels invited others, by telephone and in conversation, to join them later at a venue in Brussels for a ruck and to cause trouble in the town after the match. We must make sure that we have enough of our police listening, watching and acting with the other intelligence services to enable all such information to be fed to the Belgian and Dutch authorities. I have travelled on those trains often, as I lived in Belgium for a while. The more that we can police the main train routes in Holland and Belgium, the more likely that we are to pick up on action co-ordinated by the mobile phone, which is increasingly used in crime, not just in relation to football.
What action should UEFA take? My colleagues and I have a clear view: it would be wrong for UEFA to eliminate the English team. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) made the linked point exactly. UEFA was wrong to have had a three-hour meeting in the past two days without having the FA present. That is completely unacceptable. The FA should have been present, not only at the end of the meeting to allow it to put its case, but throughout. It would be absolutely unacceptable for UEFA to take the decision to disqualify without laying down clear criteria and ensuring that they apply to every country. Also, the same penalty should apply to each country. UEFA should also ensure that there is every chance for a case to be put, heard and argued.
More than that, it would be justifiable for UEFA to eliminate England—if the team qualifies tonight for the quarter finals—only on grounds of crowd safety or that of the team or its supporters. Otherwise, as the England manager clearly said, disqualification would not only be disproportionate, but could produce a reaction, and perhaps greater antagonism. I therefore hope that UEFA will not go down that road. I am sure that there is some internal politics, but even if there were not, the Football Association has done everything that it was asked to do. I have not read a single report of a ticket holder behaving badly. If the team, the management and the supporters have behaved respectably, it would be inappropriate for our team to pay the price for the recent events.
What else should others do? The Sunday People, reporting Saturday's match, carried the headline "Hun Nil". That is unhelpful. An opinion piece in The Mirror referred to the so-called good old days when
They used to bite yer legs, have beards and moustaches, wear Cossack after-shave and live on steak and chips with lager.
It clearly had nationalistic overtones. As my noble Friend Lord McNally said in another place yesterday, the tabloids and, sometimes politicians, are responsible for hyping


xenophobia and thus aggression. In that context, some of the language, particularly of Conservative Members in recent months, on immigrants, foreigners and asylum seekers has fuelled those who are tempted to be xenophobic or racist.
I am as patriotic about England's success as anybody else. That does not mean that I do not respect the Germans' or the Turks' right to be patriotic, or even that of difficult countries such as Yugoslavia. They have as much right as us to be patriotic and we have a duty to respect that right. I am reminded by your presence in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the home internationals give us plenty of chances to learn that we can be patriotic while respecting the fact that we have four countries in one kingdom. Some of us have learned that, and enjoyed the ups and the downs of it for many years.
If we pander to prejudice and raise the anti-foreigner game, we will pay the price. When such behaviour becomes frequent, it produces reactionary results in politicians. It leads them increasingly to call for liberties to be taken away and to support increasing numbers of bans on people who have no convictions. It leads to a new consensus, which is not liberal or progressive, but reactionary, restrictive and inhibiting. We would be taking away the liberties of the many because of the actions of the few, to use the Government's phrase in a different context. Some may rejoice in that. Fascists like the idea of continually curbing people's liberties. They like aggressive societies that curb liberties and kick people's heads in. I believed that we had got rid of such societies in Europe; we fought world wars to prevent them.
We must provide the other alternative and respond responsibly. We do not want a society in which we say, "I'm sorry, but we can't do anything about this." The Government are trying to respond to difficult issues; but we all have responsibilities as well. It is not somebody else's problem; it is the responsibility of every single one of us. From now on, whenever we witness the sort of behaviour that we are discussing, in our families, friends, peer group, neighbours and constituents, we must say that it is unacceptable. We can thus begin to change the cultural attitude of the past decades. It can be done, and we must lead. In the meantime, it would be wrong for the English team to pay the price for a problem that goes back far longer than this tournament, these matches or the events of the past few days.

Mr. Tony Banks: I begin by saying to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the House needs contributions such as his. The points that he made, some of which I shall echo, are precisely the points that the House and the country need to address. The subject is not one to be treated lightly. It should not be treated as a political football, so to speak.
I have a great deal of time for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but I must say to her—although I can say it only in her absence, as she is no longer in her place—that I expected something better from her in her speech. I do not say that in a carping way; I genuinely admire the right hon. Lady, particularly for her stand on other issues that are close to my heart, such as animal welfare.
This is a time when we need to present a united House—a united front—to the problems facing us. This is the first time that I have spoken in the House as a Back Bencher since the general election. I was looking forward to making a speech, although perhaps the House did not share my anticipated enjoyment. I would have preferred to choose almost any other subject for my contribution, but obviously I want to comment on the impact of recent events on our 2006 world cup campaign.
The crisis faced by English football is the greatest in its long, proud history. We gave the game of football to the world. That is one of the things that we have been saying in our 2006 campaign—we gave the game of football to the world, and we want to welcome the world to the home of football—yet here we are, on the threshold of becoming pariahs in the world of football. As I said, at such a time, football and the country need the parties in the House to present a united front. Playing politics with the subject, by either side, is dangerous and plays into the hands of those who wish us ill.
I understand UEFA's anger. After all, trouble breaks out only when the English fans turn up. It does not happen with the Scottish fans, or those from other countries. There are some difficulties with Turkish fans at present, but if we look back over recent years, it has tended to be the English fans who turn up and spoil the party. We can well imagine UEFA's anger, but I repeat what I said in an intervention—that it was extraordinary that Lennart Johansson, the president of UEFA, and Gerhard Aigner, the general secretary, did not see fit to call in Geoff Thompson, the chairman of the Football Association, and Adam Crozier, the chief executive, who were in Charleroi. I have just come back from Belgium. We had a meeting there last night, and I came straight back. I did not know that there was to be a debate, but I came back because there are other matters to be dealt with to keep the 2006 campaign on the road.
I find it extraordinary that the chairman and chief executive of the FA were not called in. UEFA officials talk about the family of football: I have heard them say time and again, "We are the family of football." When problems arise, they should call in the family to discuss them. There may have been a similar outcome, but at least the FA would have been party to it and would have been consulted in reaching it. I find UEFA's behaviour extraordinary. I trust that it is due to nothing more than clumsiness and political naiveté, rather than anything more sinister.
UEFA has no right, any more than anyone in the House, to play political football with such a serious issue as that now facing English football. I say to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that I find it extraordinary and unacceptable for an international football federation to attack the policies of a sovereign Government. It is not for UEFA to do that. It is entitled to its opinions, but the way that that was done is unacceptable. I use that word yet again. It is a matter for the affiliate associations—in this case, the English Football Association—to maintain contact with the national Government. It is not a matter for an international body. UEFA is not the United Nations. Although I understand the anger that it felt, which we all share in the House and which all sensible people share, UEFA must be careful not to exceed its brief.
I hope that the telephone call which I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to Lennart Johansson, and the call which I think was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to Gerhard Aigner, will restore decent relations between the British Government and UEFA. I repeat that, on this occasion, UEFA exceeded its brief in some measure.
As always, I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She seemed to attach little blame—perhaps I missed it—to the drunken yobs who disgraced football and the nation at Charleroi. In the end, that is what it is all about. The blame cannot be passed on to the Government or the football authorities; in the final analysis, we are all responsible for our own conduct. It is no good those people saying, "Well, I didn't realise that the Government had not passed strong enough legislation. Had they done so, perhaps I wouldn't have acted as I did."
Whenever I listen to the "Today" programme, everything always seems to be the Government's fault. Perhaps it is because I am now on the Government rather than the Opposition Benches—who knows?—or perhaps I am now listening properly. I begin to wonder whether, if those who blame the Government turned up late for work, they would tell the boss, "Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment did not give me my wake-up call and I blame the Government for making me late for work." That is a caricature, but, increasingly in this country, when a problem arises we pass the blame on to the Government and ask what they are going to do about it.
The Government can and must take action. Perhaps they should have done more, but, ultimately, responsibility for the scenes that we saw was entirely that of the yobs who created the mayhem and havoc. We must ensure that, whatever points we make in this House, we never lose sight of that fact.
The right hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hon. Member."] Perhaps one day he will be a right hon. Gentleman, but it will be for long service on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like you.

Mr. Banks: Yes, like me. It is surprising how fast time goes when one is enjoying oneself.
The hon. Gentleman touched on a crucial point: there is a yob culture in this country, and it goes beyond football. It dispirits me to say that. We saw who those people were and we have, more or less, a picture of them—they are overwhelmingly young, white, male, drunk, xenophobic and racist. Short of locking up everyone in the country who fits that description—unfortunately, they might be a minority, but they are a substantial minority—we cannot deal with the problem in terms of football or any other part of our society, sporting or otherwise.
The hon. Gentleman was also correct to say that we see the same sort of people in town and city centres around the country every Saturday night. Our town centres are being turned into no-go areas for respectable citizens. As the hon. Gentleman said, we also see them in Spanish and Greek resorts. How often have we felt ashamed to be

English when we have been there ourselves and seen the loutish behaviour of those street trash? That is exactly what they are.
We must do more than simply get angry about the problem. We must try to analyse how it happens, rather than simply throw blame backwards and forwards. We must try to find a sophisticated way of dealing with it because, ultimately, these people are a problem for us all.
There is no easy legislative way to deal with these people. No one could describe me as a governmental brown noser, but I accept what the Secretary of State has said. I believe that we could have done more. In the end, however, one has to hope that people will behave better—that they will behave like responsible human beings. I get angry when people say that they behave like animals. Animals never behave in that way, so let us not use that description again.
We must now consider what further measures we can take. However, the House and the country must accept that, every time we take more measures, we scoop up people who are innocent. Further measures will also make injustice apparent to the innocent people who are caught up and will take more civil liberties away from us. We are English and proud to be English, but, frankly, those yobs who call themselves English have no right to use such a description of themselves. We must deal with them in the strictest and strongest way possible, while never losing sight of the fact that a much deeper-seated problem in our society encourages those people and fosters their behaviour patterns.
As I have said, we all have responsibility—the Government, football and, obviously, the House. But who are these people? They did not just appear. There are times when we feel that they are aliens, and that we do not want to share the planet with them, let alone a football ground, a continental street or a continental beach. Nevertheless, they have mothers, fathers, sisters and girl friends. It is about time that the families of these people started to put some pressure on them as well.
As I would never have behaved in such a way, I suppose that what I am going to say is a bit of a nonsense; but I can imagine what my father's reaction would have been if the front page of a newspaper had shown a picture of me coming back, having been kicked out of Belgium, Ireland, France—which hosted the World cup in 1998—or any other place in the world where we have caused mayhem in recent years. No one can exonerate himself, and the families of those yobs and thugs have a responsibility to deal with them. No one can walk away and say that it is someone else's fault—that the Government, or football, should do something about it.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also made a good point about the language used by the tabloids. They, too, are responsible. Let me make it clear that I do not blame them, but it is a fact that language such as "Hun Nil!"—which was the headline on the front page of the Sunday People after the result—is racist and offensive. It encourages contempt for foreigners.
That is where all this problem stems from. As kids at school, we were brought up with the idea of the British empire—the empire on which the sun never set. There was a subtext: the English—I say "the English" because of the way in which we responded to the Scottish, the Irish and the Welsh—were the master race, created in


God's image, and God had made a big mistake when he created foreigners. As mature individuals, we can deal with that; it need not infect us. I am afraid, however, that some of those semi-educated mindless yobs do not see it that way.
No doubt whoever wrote that headline thinks that it was just a bit of fun, but unfortunately it is necessary to be reasonably intelligent to appreciate humour. In fact, I do not find the headline particularly funny—I find it offensive—but to the weak, febrile individuals of whom we are talking, it constitutes almost a justification for the things that they do. "We beat the Hun": how offensive that is to Germans, both those in Germany and those who live and work in this country.
The Sun used a similar headline: "Heroes 1, Jankers 0". No other newspapers in the world describe football results in that way. Indeed, the language of most countries does not include insults to foreigners, and certainly does not include the range and complexity of insults that ours does. We cannot even engage in a debate about the European Union without using tabloid language and talking about Frogs and Krauts. As I say, I do not blame the tabloids, but tabloid journalists cannot write racist rubbish of that sort and then write editorials or features condemning the behaviour of the very people whose attitudes they have, in my view, fostered and, in certain cases, encouraged. No doubt I shall be ripped to pieces by some of the tabloid editors tomorrow. It will not be the first time, and I am sure that I can live with it. We know that what I have said is true, and it is about time that tabloid editors and journalists realised that they cannot whip up such behaviour and subsequently condemn it. They must realise that they are part of the problem.
Even if we are booted out of Euro 2000, that will not solve the problem of the yob culture described by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and me. We, as a country and as a Parliament, must come together to seek ways of dealing with what I consider to be a cancer in our society. Toughening up legislation is one way, but securing changes in attitudes and putting peer pressure on these people is another matter.
We have dealt with the problem on our domestic football scene. That is the irony: all this only happens when people go abroad. The manifestations are here, but they are controlled in a far more organised way. When these people go abroad, all the restrictions are off, and they revert to the crude and nasty type that we recognise. We tackled racism inside our grounds through campaigns but, in the end, the thing that stops people is peer pressure. People used regularly to jump up and start to make strange monkey noises at a black player on the pitch, even at the club that I have supported for 50 years, Chelsea. "We are the only white club in London", used to be the song. British National party and National Front literature was openly sold on the terraces. We have dealt with that through peer pressure. In the end, that is what will deal with the yob culture in this country.
I want to say a few words about my work, as all Members know—well, I hope that they know, because if they do not I do not know what I have been doing for the past 12 months—as the Prime Minister's special envoy. I have felt many times that I have become that legendary Member for 30,000 ft. I have been working with others on England's campaign to ensure that England hosts the

world cup in 2006. I stood down as Sports Minister precisely to represent the Government on that campaign; I felt that it needed my full-time attention.
My heart sank when FIFA, the world governing body, changed the decision date for 2006 from March to July. Immediately, I thought, "Oh no. My God. Euro 2000." I knew that there would be problems, not least in England qualifying. We managed to scrape through, but I thought, "We will have real difficulties now." It is a tragedy because—I do not say it in any jingoistic way; all the FIFA members have acknowledged it—we have the best bid. England has the best bid in terms of our facilities, the atmosphere in our grounds, our stadiums and the excitement and passion of our football. It is such a tragedy that that might all be wasted if England is thrown out of Euro 2000.
As I have said, if that happens it will be difficult to see a way forward. If the decision had been taken, as it was originally meant to be taken, in March by FIFA, frankly, we would have won. We could still win, just, but it now depends on what happens not on the pitch, but on the streets of Charleroi tonight and, if we get through against Romania, when we play Italy in the quarter final.
It is a tragedy. It is not special pleading for myself—I have a job and I will just carry on doing other things. But a sizeable chunk of my life and the lives of a whole group of people, young men and women, have been spent working on the campaign for four years. Those people include Sir Bobby Charlton, Sir Geoff Hurst, Alec McGiven, the campaign director, and all the people at the Football Association. They have made a great effort. We should be proud of what they have all done. I do not want that effort to be absolutely wasted by what has been done to our reputation in Charleroi and elsewhere.
It still is a wonderfully well-organised, effective and professional campaign. Incidentally, we spent no more money on our campaign—none of it is Government money—than the South Africans and Germans have spent on theirs. I hope that they are not enjoying our predicament, but how much more optimistic they must now feel about their chances than they did only a couple of weeks ago. If anything goes badly, we will be in real trouble.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman think that all this is very sad for the children of this country who love soccer and go out and play in divisions, championships and tournaments? One of the great memories of my childhood was England winning the world cup at home. Our children will be deprived of that because of a bunch of real oafs and yobs.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes that point and gives his age away because some of the newer Members probably were not even born when England last won the World cup. I hope that I do not go to my grave before we win it again. I might add that trying to host the world cup in 2006 was not some foolproof way of ensuring that we won it again. We can still win it, but we will probably have to do so somewhere else. The hon. Gentleman was right in those comments.
Part of the campaign for 2006 is "England's Welcome to the World", which involves inviting 12 young people under the age of 15 from every one of the 203 countries that are affiliated to FIFA—which has more affiliated


countries than the United Nations does—to come to England for two weeks, with up to four adults and carers, to stay in our homes and to share the experience of the 2006 World cup in England. It is an imaginative scheme, and it has received great acclaim around the world. The world cup is about our children and about passing on the legacy. We are still talking about the 1966 world cup, which many people still consider to be the greatest sporting event that this country has ever enjoyed. Some people, however, would say that it goes even further than that.
As I said, this is a very sad day for English football. I am hoping that, if things go well today and on Saturday—if we beat Romania—we shall be able to get things back on to an even keel, proceed with our game—with our clubs in European competitions and our national team in international competitions—and keep our world cup 2006 bid on the road. However, if that does not happen, I know who I will blame—that street trash and dog dirt who disgrace not only the name of English football, but this country itself. They will never, ever, be forgiven.

Sir Norman Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on his return to making Back-Bench speeches—his have always been extremely good and entertaining. He is, obviously, going to continue in that tradition. I also pay tribute to him for the work that he has done for football. I agree very much with his comment on yob culture—which I shall return to later in my speech.
There seem to be essentially three questions in this debate. The first is whether the Government should have introduced legislation to widen police powers particularly to prevent suspected football hooligans from travelling abroad. In my view, the Government should have done that. They seem to support the principle of doing so, or at least that is my understanding of their rather convoluted letters and statements.
As everyone, I think, must recognise and know, only the Government could—or, arguably, should—introduce that type of legislation. We all recognise that such legislation would be controversial. Liberty still condemns even the prospect of such legislation. It is absurd, however, to think that one can leave such legislation to a private Member, even one who is as skilled as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It was also incredibly weak for the Government, with their overwhelming majority, not to pass such legislation.
I have no doubt whatsoever that such legislation is a Government responsibility. I do not think that either the Home Secretary or Lord Bassam—who, extraordinarily, is the Minister in charge of football safety—has done himself any great credit with the argument that such legislation was defeated by Conservative Members. Yesterday, the Home Secretary was at least cautious on that bogus argument. Nevertheless, I listened yesterday as Lord Bassam repeated the argument on radio.
It is tempting to write off Lord Bassam as a one-man argument for reform of the House of Lords, but the issue goes rather wider than that. I find it difficult to take seriously the Government's intent on football safety as long as he is left in charge of it. Frankly, I think that the hon. Member for West Ham would do a much better job of it than Lord Bassam could.
About two years ago, the Government were warned about the prospect of what has now happened. When I moved new clause 10 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, I said:
Last week, the vast majority of this country felt shame at the behaviour in Marseilles of so-called English supporters—who comprised only a small number of the English people in Marseilles, and in no way represented genuine English football supporters, any more than they represented the people of this country itself.
Nevertheless, we saw for ourselves the damage that was done and the violence that was committed.—[Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 710.]
Two years later, all those words could have been used about the events in Belgium. The Government have had two years to act, but they have failed to do so. Regardless of whether it would have had an impact on recent events, the Government should have introduced legislation—that is their responsibility.
The second question is whether such powers would have had any significant effect on the events at the weekend. I was not happy with what the Home Secretary said, because he seemed to choose his words carefully on that subject. He said:
Of the nearly 400 now being deported, just 15 have been identified as previously known hooligans and of those, one has had a domestic exclusion order against him.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 37.]
That led the Home Secretary to the conclusion that legislative changes, of the kind that the House has had before it recently, are not necessary. However, had the House known then what the Daily Mail reported today—that 80 of the first 200 deported had criminal convictions—that would have changed the flavour of our reaction to that statement.
There is a great difference between being told that only 15 of those deported from Brussels were previously known hooligans and learning that some 80—if not more—convicted criminals were among them. That was revealed not by the Home Office, but by a national newspaper. We should have known that yesterday and it is not necessary or justifiable to point to the criminal conviction rate on average among young people generally. The Home Secretary went on to conclude that legislation was not required and would have had no impact in any case.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: rose

Sir Norman Fowler: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he has been present for the debate.

Mr. Caplin: I have been here for some of the debate. I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to clarify his point about criminal convictions, and whether they were football related, because that is an important aspect of the legislation promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

Sir Norman Fowler: With respect, that is why I made the point about the hon. Gentleman not being here for the relevant part of the debate, because I was talking about convictions that are not related to football. We have been exploring in the debate to what extent the commission of an offence not related to football can have an impact on an exclusion order to prevent a person from going


overseas. That is what my new clause was about two years ago and it is the issue that the Home Office has been considering for the past two years.
I am unconvinced by the case made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that some of the people involved were undetectable first offenders. That is not a sustainable point. The Home Secretary made the same point, somewhat disingenuously, when he said that barristers and engineers were among those who were arrested. Doubtless they were, but they were not typical.
The Home Secretary said yesterday that it is not because of a lack of resources that hooligans are not detected but, if a power had existed, the police might have investigated more thoroughly. My conclusion is that such a power could and would have prevented some of the hooligans from travelling to Europe.
My third question is whether all our aims in this area can be achieved exclusively through new legislation. My answer is the same as that given by the hon. Member for West Ham and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). They cannot be achieved simply by legislation, and that should be recognised.
We should also recognise that there is no single remedy. We need a series of measures if we are to tackle this problem, because it is fanciful to believe that those who riot overseas lead a blameless life in this country, and that the only time that they ever commit any offences at a football match is when they go overseas. I do not believe that.
I strongly agree with an article, not in one of the Conservative supporting newspapers, but in today's Daily Mirror, by Paul Routledge, who wrote that what happens in our British towns and cities, with
Young English males … gripped by an urge to get drunk and violent
is then exported over the channel.
It is fashionable to be a lout. And to be a lout abroad is very heaven.
That is the kind of issue that we now have to tackle.
There is an additional factor. Not only are those concerned, as the hon. Member for West Ham put it so well, yobs and louts, but they believe that they can get away with it. That is the missing part of what the hon. Gentleman said. They feel that their actions will have no consequences in terms of the law.
Here I do not make a party point. Over the 30 years that I have been in this House, under different Governments, various parts of the law of this country have fallen into disuse—not minor parts, but major parts. For example, traffic laws are now substantially unenforced. Everyone knows that that is the case. It is to the benefit of the aggressive and to the disbenefit of the young and the vulnerable, who are injured and killed as a result.
Crimes such as burglary receive little police attention, and crimes such as breaking into vehicles receive next to no police attention. I shall give just two small examples. On Sunday, I returned to my car and found that the car parked behind mine had the door ominously wide open. I rang the police to report a break-in. I got an operator, but was initially told, "I'm sorry, sir. The line is engaged. Do you wish to hold?" as if it were like reporting to Direct Line Insurance. There was no interest, although

ultimately, when I got through, there was some. When I had my own car broken into in my constituency, there was no interest whatsoever in that deeply boring crime, apart from my being given a report number for my insurance.
I use those examples to make the point. This has happened over a period of years—from the second world war onwards. It has happened at no particular time, but over years, and I am in no way trying to make a party point about it.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that over recent years, right up to the present, in the west midlands as elsewhere, the number of burglaries and the number of vehicle crimes has continued to go down?

Sir Norman Fowler: I am delighted to hear that that is so. I can only report what happened. If the Minister is trying to make a party point, he will concede that the investigation of burglary and of car crimes is very cursory. There is no conceivable question about that. I am not blaming the police. They clearly have a list of priorities and have to go for the first priority. In my own street, there has been a murder and that has been investigated with tremendous use of resources by the police. I am not trying to make any party points.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had been in Parliament for over 30 years. I previously worked for a shipping company, and I saw some of the damage and disastrous vandalism caused by football fans who travelled on ships over those years. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman and his party did not leave it to companies then to select whom they took on their ships. Why did they not introduce legislation to prevent those people from travelling abroad on those ships when they were in charge?

Sir Norman Fowler: It is always dangerous to make a party point, because then one is countered with another straightforward party point. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go down that course, I would reply that I have strong memories of the 1980s, when we sought to introduce various restrictions to try to deal with football hooliganism and were strongly opposed.
I am not trying to ascribe blame to one party or another, least of all to the police, but if people think that they can break the law without consequence, some will do so; if people with good jobs—banisters and engineers—feel that they can get drunk and riot, some will do so. It is a simple consequence of the fact that they are not prevented by detection.
In both cases, part of the solution is to raise the prospect of detection and conviction. That could have most effect on the kind of people that the Home Secretary has been talking about—the people with good jobs who we assume do not want to lose them. If greater detection is part of the solution, the House had better face the prospect that there is no alternative to having more police. We are under-policed, and our cities and towns are now paying the price. Many would argue that the country areas are also paying the price.
The Home Secretary used to talk about zero tolerance. He went to New York to look at the situation there, and I followed in his footsteps. I spent a few days with the


New York police looking at zero tolerance. There is no question but that the policy of zero tolerance—it is not a particularly good description—had a dramatic effect in New York. New York is infinitely better than it was five or 10 years ago, when it was a drug-ridden and crime-ridden city. What the police have been able to do has been built on the fact that an extra 7,000 police were put into place before the policy was introduced. That is why it was successful; that is why they were able to have an impact; that is why they were able to bring crime down. It has been the success of the New York police, but a success based upon more police.

Mr. Charles Clarke: We have debated police numbers in the House to a great extent. Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that the football hooliganism that we are debating today is a direct result of the reduction in police numbers in the years 1992 to 1997, when he was a member of the Government?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is one of the silliest arguments that the Government have put forward. Why does the Minister choose the years 1992 to 1997? Why do Ministers use the argument about 1992 to 1997? Do they not normally use the argument about 18 years of Tory Government? Do they not normally go back to 1979? The hon. Gentleman knows extremely well why he does not go back to 1979. It is because, if he takes the years 1979 to 1997, the period of the last Conservative Government, he finds that it ended with over 15,000 extra police. The Minister should not make these cheap party political points. That is a silly point, one that the Home Secretary makes, and nothing makes me angrier or more irritated, because it is completely spurious and foolish.

Mr. Clarke: I had no intention of raising the subject in this debate at all, but the right hon. Gentleman put on the agenda the question of police numbers in relation to soccer hooliganism. I am responding to his point.

Sir Norman Fowler: If the Minister is not going to talk about police numbers, crime prevention or the relationship between what hooligans do overseas and in this country, he should get another job, as he is not making the right connections. He asked about the period 1992 to 1997—five years of the 18 years of Conservative Government.

Mr. Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, as I am sure that the Minister will wind up the debate and avoid mentioning this subject. When the Conservative Government left office, there were 15,000 more police officers than when we came to power. When I was in government, there was no question about the priority given in the 1980s to recruiting more police and adding to police strength.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent Audit Commission report, which criticised the Government for reversing the trend evident throughout the Conservative years, including the period 1992 to 1997, when the numbers of police constables and front-line police officers rose? The report found that, under this Government, the number of officers had fallen.

Sir Norman Fowler: That is right: police numbers have fallen, not risen. However it is defined, the problem

must be resolved, but my argument goes beyond police numbers. If we want to prevent people from going abroad and causing problems, we must do something at home. As the hon. Member for West Ham said, we must ensure that peer pressure is exerted on those responsible, but we must also increase detection rates. That would have a preventive effect on crime in general, and especially on the type of crime that is the subject of the debate.
If I needed any confirmation of my determination to vote for the Opposition motion, the Minister has provided it. To cope with the problem that we face, we must give the police more powers. The responsibility for doing that lies with the Government and Home Office Ministers. At the same time, we need to have more police officers.
The Government have failed to introduce the necessary legislation, and to recruit and retain police officers. Above all, they have shown themselves to be deeply complacent, and that is why I and my colleagues will vote for the motion this evening.

Mr. Derek Twigg: It goes without saying that I condemn the shameful violence at the weekend, for which there can be no excuse. It is a pity and a disgrace that it should have overshadowed the victory over Germany for which we have waited so long.
The debate is not about political point-scoring, but I want to consider what the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, and to look back at the record of the Conservative party on this matter. The previous Conservative Government introduced four Bills relating to football violence and disorder—the Public Order Act 1986, the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It took them seven years to get their first Bill on to the statute book, yet they have the cheek to tell us that we have not done enough to solve the problem of football violence. They had four attempts and still failed to achieve anything. It is a disgrace that Conservative Members should have the cheek to accuse the Government of not doing enough.
I should add that, even after the 1994 Act was passed, we saw the disgraceful scenes in Dublin in 1995. What did the Conservative legislation achieve to stop that sort of violence? We will take no lessons from the Opposition, given the disgraceful way in which they dealt with the problem.
How many times have hon. Members and Ministers debated and condemned violence by English football fans abroad? It is a terrible and continuing problem that has no easy solution. We must work out how to reduce and control the problem, and how to deal with the perpetrators. The newspapers print many intellectual, soul-searching articles asking whether the problem is an English phenomenon or whether it has to do with the loss of empire or with the fact that we won two world wars. I do not know the real reasons behind the problem: all I know is that the violence is wrong.
There is no getting away from the English mentality which says that we are superior to other nationalities. According to that way of thinking, it is all right to go abroad, abuse the people there and subject them to violence. That violence is directed not only at males but at women and children as well.
As has been noted, the people involved come from a drunken yob culture that is not acceptable. A sizeable minority of people believe that it is all right to go abroad and behave in that way. That is a disgrace.
There are many positive things to be said about our country, and some negatives. The same is true of all countries, and I do not understand the English conviction that we are superior. English people should be able to behave properly in other countries, and the violence that takes place is a disgrace.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that the Belgian authorities assured my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that they would deal severely with people who were violent or disorderly. The measures used against them were to include prosecuting them, bringing them to trial and, if necessary, jailing them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that assurance was given?
One of the biggest problems is that English yobs abroad think that they can get away with crimes of violence and abuse because they know that they will not be sent to jail. Some will not even be formally arrested, and the ones who are sent to jail are released quickly. I accept that people should not behave violently in the first place, but should not strong action be taken by the authorities in the countries concerned?
That strong action has been supported by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by former Tory Ministers, but it never seems to be taken: people are merely removed from the streets and then sent back home. We can deal with the problem by making sure that people know that they will be arrested for what they do, and that they will be shamed. That would deter many of them from violent behaviour, and I shall be interested in my hon. Friend's response to that proposal.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned Colonel Blickie, the man in charge of the Belgian operation. He made the worrying admission that many of the people arrested over the weekend had not committed any offence. It is a double tragedy if genuine, peaceful football supporters who have done nothing wrong have been caught up in the problem. I do not blame the Belgian authorities for a problem that is caused by English people, but I hope that everything is being done to deal with the violence.
Many political points have been made in the debate, but certain elements have been missed. For example, an important factor in the violence is that strong beer has been sold all day to fans. Why was that allowed to happen? I am not sure that the weaker beer and other options available in Holland would have prevented trouble if England had played Germany there, but elsewhere strong beer was on sale all day and people were able to get drunk on it.
Moreover, why were large crowds allowed to gather in one place? Containing trouble in one area may be a good tactic, but the question remains an interesting one.
Flashpoint matches take place in the British domestic game, and the game against Germany was considered to be just such a match. In this country, games between Liverpool and Manchester United, Newcastle United and

Sunderland or Celtic and Rangers are often played at midday or in the early afternoon. That stops the all-day drinking that causes people to get fuelled up and cause trouble, and it seems to bring about a significant reduction in violence.
I know that there is no excuse for the behaviour that we have seen, and that international matches are often required to fit in with the television schedules, but why has not the same approach been adopted with those games? Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) talk about people who, although they have not been convicted of football-related offences, may have convictions for other offences. The right hon. Lady said that we need to safeguards but, when challenged, would not say what those safeguards should be. We need to know what those safeguards would be, otherwise the right hon. Lady's remarks are just the usual rhetoric from the Conservatives attacking the Government.
If a yob is shown on video to be throwing a chair or a bottle or punching someone, that seems pretty good evidence to use to prevent more of those people from travelling abroad and stopping more trouble taking place, as many right hon. and hon. Members have suggested in this debate. I think that there are ways of ensuring that there is evidence that can and should be used in the future.
The Home Secretary pointed out that it is easier to stop people at the point of entry than to stop them leaving. That important point should be taken up more strongly with our counterparts in Europe, and I hope that something will be done about it.
It is important to football in general, and to football in this country in particular, that we host the world cup. This is the home of football—we invented the game. We have excellent stadiums and facilities, the support is fanatical and everyone who comes here from abroad comments on the good atmosphere at matches. It would be a travesty if we lost the opportunity to host the world cup because of what has happened recently.
Our police, authorities and organisations seem much better able to control any disorder or trouble. We have a strong record in dealing with trouble efficiently. I am not sure that there would be any trouble—there were some incidents at Euro 96 but, overall, with the Germans in Manchester and the Dutch and French in Liverpool, there was a good atmosphere. People enjoyed themselves, and it was a good occasion. I am quite sure that that could be recreated. I hope that we do not lose our opportunity to hold the world cup here because of the behaviour of these yobs.
This is a very important issue—it causes great national anxiety, and it shames the country. My constituents are absolutely sick and tired of it. There are measures that can be taken, but it ill behoves the Conservative party to suggest that the fault is the Government's. We must all share some of the blame but there is no simple remedy for solving the problem totally. The previous Government had at least four attempts during their time in office—

Mr. Heald: Five.

Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman says that it was five. Even so, they failed, so they should not give us any


lessons. We will do what we can to solve the problem, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do all that he can to bring about some change in this area.

Mr. Simon Burns: We had the Home Secretary's statement yesterday, and we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today, against the backdrop of a minority of thugs and louts going abroad and committing violence and mayhem once again. It is a national humiliation, and it drags the reputation of our national sport into the gutter.
We must look at what more can be done to minimise the disgraceful behaviour that we have had to suffer over the past two weeks or so. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, very little can be done with regard to first-time offenders. There will be terrible problems preventing them from doing anything because, by definition, they are unknown to the authorities. That applies not simply to football-related incidents, but to any walk of life and any crime. However, I believe—a point to which I alluded in earlier interventions on the Home Secretary—that there is one area of the law which should have been tightened up by now and which must be tightened up as soon as possible. I refer to the omission in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 concerning the removal of passports for unconvicted football hooligans in certain circumstances.
I never envisaged the state using such a power willy-nilly and irresponsibly. During the proceedings on my private Member's Bill, I understood the Government to agree with me 100 per cent. that there should be a power in law to allow unconvicted individuals to have their passports withdrawn before an international match or championship if an application was made to the courts by the police and it was proven to the court's satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that if those individuals travelled abroad, they would engage in acts of violence, vandalism or hooliganism.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: I am sorry but I will not, because time is limited.
A number of people have referred to civil liberties. I will give two examples to show that that principle is already engaged in our legal system. Anyone on bail pending a court appearance or a court case—who is, of course, innocent until proved guilty—can be asked to surrender their passport, and must do so. Secondly, in difficult child custody cases, if a court suspects that a child may be taken beyond the jurisdiction of a British court, the passport of the parent can be withdrawn, although no crime has been committed and no crime may be committed. Those are examples of taking action prior to an event whose consequences would be difficult to rectify.
I believe that it would have been right to provide the power to withdraw the passport of unconvicted individuals, under certain circumstances and when a court was satisfied. I also believe—even more strongly today than I did when I asked the Home Secretary about it yesterday—that that measure should have been taken in time for Euro 2000. So that there could be no

misunderstanding, I specifically asked the right hon. Gentleman in an intervention today whether it was right that about 30 to 35 per cent. of people who have been arrested in Belgium over the past two weeks have criminal convictions—not for football-related offences, but simple criminal convictions. The Home Secretary said yes.
No doubt, when we have the proper information and data in the coming weeks, we will be able to study this in greater detail. However, I suspect that a number of the individuals who were arrested have been convicted of crimes of violence, possibly even hooliganism or other anti-social behaviour. Those would have been valid grounds for a court to withdraw the passport of such individuals so that they could not travel abroad. Even though such convictions were for criminal offences and were not football-related, it shows that such people are minded to commit acts of violence during a football riot in any town or city in Belgium or Holland.
The Government have made a mistake by not using their majority and legislating for those powers, after the Queen's Speech, in time for Euro 2000. That is what I thought was their intention when I discussed the matter with the Home Office during the Committee stage of my Bill. I said that I would not proceed with that proposal because I was fearful, for the reasons that I outlined to the Home Secretary, that it might mean that the whole Bill would be lost last summer, either in this House or, more probably, in another place.
I urge the Government, even at this late stage, not to forgo taking those powers. If I have understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) correctly, the Opposition have pledged to assist the Government in allowing those provisions to come into force in time. It is important to have that power for future football matches and, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, we desperately want to host the world cup in 2006. Events of the past two weeks have meant a setback, but we must prove to the world not only that are we determined to do all that we can to minimise and tackle football hooliganism—there is a common will about that on both sides of the House—but that we are backing our words and good intentions with positive acts. That would be a good act, and a signal both to the community outside this place who engage in football hooliganism and to those who will determine the awarding of the 2006 matches that we are determined to do all that we can within the law.
I find encouraging and welcome some of the comments made by the Home Secretary in his statement yesterday about international bans on convicted hooligans under the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, and the courts then adding the extra penalty of banning those individuals for up to a maximum of 10 years from travelling abroad to football matches.
That legislation was passed last summer, and I suspect that no Member taking part in the debates that preceded its enactment doubted that the courts would ruthlessly use the powers that it provided when football hooligans were convicted. We seem to be finding—it is still early days because the Act has been in force only since September last year—that the courts are reluctant to use the powers. There is anecdotal evidence to that effect. For that reason, I was encouraged by what the Home Secretary said about tightening procedures and encouraging the courts to use the powers that are available to them more extensively.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that I am right in saying that one of the most effective and immediate ways to try to redress the tardiness of the courts is for the Lord Chancellor immediately to issue guidance to them reminding them of the powers in the Act and telling them that they are expected to use those powers unless there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons for them not to impose international bans.
It would be a travesty, and a snub to the House, if the courts were to ignore the intention of Parliament, which is clearly specified in the 1999 Act. We are not talking of a section that is badly drafted and open to doubt. To strengthen the courts' resolve, the Act states that if the courts do not impose a banning order, they must in public state their reasons for not doing so. That part of the Act shows that we expected the courts to use the powers vigorously. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will remind the courts of that.
If the courts do not start doing what Parliament intended, I urge Home Office Ministers to give serious consideration to taking the next step forward and saying, "All right, we have tried. The courts are reluctant to do what Parliament wants, so we shall make it crystal clear to them by introducing a mandatory sentence for anyone who is convicted of a football-related offence. There can be a longer time for those who are convicted and sent to prison, and possibly a shorter time for those who are not imprisoned, to differentiate between the seriousness of crimes and the punishment that ensues." That must be done.
We shall not overcome or minimise the problem solely by means of legislation, although legislation is an important weapon in the armoury. However, something that I was reading today struck me as perhaps worthy of consideration, and that is naming and shaming football hooligans. I cannot claim credit for the suggestion. The practice started in the United States about 15 or 20 years ago, and it related to other crimes. Local newspapers would name and shame individuals who engaged in certain criminal activities or anti-social activities, to bring peer pressure to bear on those involved to improve their behaviour and social attitudes. It may be worth considering that local newspapers should name and shame those individuals who may not have a conviction but who have been arrested or deported from a foreign country, or who have been apprehended in this country, for hooligan or anti-social behaviour.
The Home Secretary has mentioned the extent to which middle-class people, such as lawyers and accountants, are being arrested for football hooliganism in Europe. Most people do not want to be named and shamed. They do not want their anti-social, drunken or violent behaviour drawn to the attention of their neighbours and the members of their local community. If naming and shaming could bring peer pressure to bear on them to take a more responsible attitude, it would be worth a try. That would be in addition to all the other measures that are needed and those that are set out in the legislation.
I hope that tonight, and for the rest of competition, we do not see a repetition of what we have had to put up with for the past two weeks. I am not confident that that will happen, but I hope that it will. Sadly, we are dealing with a minority of morons, who do not have the intelligence to

behave rationally: it must be the big stick rather than the carrot if we are to get them back on track and stop the nation being repetitively and constantly shamed.

Mr. Martin Salter: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this sadly topical debate on football hooliganism. I am grateful also to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for giving me just enough time to make my contribution. However, I caution against the effectiveness of naming and shaming. Some of the so-called fans of whom I am aware who are involved in organised football violence do not consider naming to be shaming. Instead, they consider it to be a badge of honour. That is the awful truth with which we must deal.
I am not an impartial participant in the debate. I speak as a long-term football supporter and as a regular attender of football league matches for more than 30 years. I recently had the honour to be made vice-president of Reading football supporters' club, something of which I am particularly proud, as many people in Reading well know. However, I am ashamed to admit that, over the years, my town has produced some especially violent football hooligans, whose behaviour was highlighted in the recent BBC documentary entitled "Maclntyre Under Cover".
I was in the Chamber yesterday during the exchanges following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Euro 2000, and on the disgraceful scenes of violence and mayhem that occurred over the weekend at Charleroi. With a few exceptions, the quality of the contributions did none of those present any favours. For example—I say this in all kindness—what does the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) know about football fans? How many football matches has she attended? Does she seriously think that football violence started when the Government were elected? Does she recollect events at places such as Turin, Heysel, Malmo and Dublin, which occurred when Conservative Governments were in power? It is not a party political matter. It is a damning indictment of the conduct of a significant minority of fans and of a rich seam of thuggery towards, and contempt for, people from other nations.
I say to the Government that it is a bit lame to try to pin the blame for the failure of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on the actions of the lunatic right on the Conservative Benches, when many Labour Members had reservations. The lunatic right, or the extreme right, have a responsibility, but that is not only in this place. Its role is in the public promotion of racism and xenophobia, which is, sadly, a hallmark of certain aspects of English football.
I have spent a good deal of my political life working with anti-racist and anti-fascist groups in fighting organised and violent racism. I pay particular tribute to my colleagues from the Searchlight magazine for their invaluable work in exposing the strands of evil that link the extreme right wing in British politics with organised violence, both on and round the football terraces and against black, Jewish and Asian members of our community.
I return to our home-grown thugs from Reading. I am talking about Danny Walford and Andy Frain. We learn much about what motivates these people from the


company that they keep. Frain is a member of Combat 18—the name is derived from Hitler's initials—which provides bodyguards for holocaust apologists and other right-wing, racist speakers. He runs—I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—with the Chelsea headhunters, and he has been prosecuted for the dissemination of Ku-Klux Klan literature. He dreams, I fear, of establishing a white homeland in Essex. Walford, as the documentary showed, glories in violence. He has no political affinity with any one football club, and he boasts how easy it is to organise nicks and riots on the internet and via mobile phones.
Instead of trying to score political points, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and some of her colleagues would do well to consider how their own public comments and actions affect the situation. They have helped to fuel the atmosphere of racial intolerance that lies at the heart of the problem.
In case any hon. Member doubts that the major problem underlying football hooliganism relates to the behaviour of English fans abroad rather than at domestic competitions, it is worth quoting House of Commons Library figures for arrests and attendances at football league and premier league matches. There has been a welcome reduction in football-related violence. In 1984–85, there were 7,000 arrests from 17 million attendances. Last year, the arrests fell to more than 3,000 while attendances rose to 24 million.
That is a tribute to the behaviour of the vast majority—the genuine football fans—and the efficiency of the police and clubs in tracking, identifying and banning known troublemakers and those involved with organised football violence. What happened in Charleroi at the weekend had absolutely nothing to do with football, and everything to do with alcohol-fuelled racism and xenophobia. How else can one explain comments made by a spokesman for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, who said on Sunday:
The bottom line is that there were a lot of young men aged between 18 and 30 who get drunk and like to cause trouble. They talk about provocation but to these people someone speaking German is considered provocation.
That is a damning indictment.
Practical measures could be taken to isolate the thugs. I shall not use up time by listing them, but they offer only part of the answer. We must address the whole conduct of our politics. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who condemned the street trash who have done so much to blight our national game and our reputation as a footballing nation.

Mr. Tony Clarke: I appreciate that we are pressed for time but does my hon. Friend agree that we are hindered in tackling the street thugs and trash by the media's comments about Kraut-bashing and analogies with the second world war? Does not the media's little Englander attitude, which also, sometimes, expresses itself among those on the Conservative Benches, hinder our progress towards being less anti-European and not such little Englanders?

Mr. Salter: I agree. Sections of the tabloid media must bear their share of the responsibility.
We have proved that football hooliganism can be tackled effectively at home. The challenge is to take further practical steps to prevent known hooligans from

travelling to games abroad. We must also tackle the racism and xenophobia that spews out filth in the back rooms of certain of our political parties, in the pages of some of our tabloid media and in far too many of the hearts and minds of young English males masquerading as football fans.

Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate on this important subject. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) talked about the yob culture and its effect on the innocent. We must all realise that the hopes of many people, particularly the young, are tied up with the England football team as they face Romania tonight. I recently attended a football tournament for under-13s at which there was remarkable enthusiasm for Euro 2000 and for seeing England and our best players do well. Most of the nation will be glued to television, hoping that England will do well. We hope that our players, who have done rather better than usual so far, will be able to progress.
However, at the same time there is the dread thought for the people of Belgium and Holland that the violence might return. In an article earlier this week, a journalist put the matter rather well, writing:
The politicians ought to front up in the midst of a riot to see for themselves what it feels like to be intimidated, abused, roughed up, vomited on, stolen from and, in every sense of the word, offended. Then, perhaps, they would not talk quite as much about civil liberties and nets, but instead find the guts to eradicate this plain yobbery.
Both sides of the House have offered strong condemnation of the oafs, yobs and louts who commit these acts and humiliate our country.
As a Conservative, even I feel that having our Prime Minister snubbed by the Belgian Prime Minister when he attempted to hold a meeting in front of the television about football hooligans displays the depths to which our country has sunk. We are being shamed and humiliated. In 1998, at the world cup in France, we saw a glimpse of the same thing. At Marseilles, a dreadful riot involved English fans, but it was not only the English who were to blame. At Lens that year, German fans went on the rampage, beating a gendarme almost to death.
There were, however, different reactions in England and Germany to those shocking events. The German reaction was to take emergency measures to try to stop that happening again. In England, within a week of the incident, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) tabled amendments in Committee on the Crime and Disorder Bill in which he sought to make it possible, in the cases of those known to be likely to cause riots, damage and insulting behaviour, for a court, on the application of the police, to be able to say that, for specified persons and matches, the risk of allowing travel would be too great. There is a civil liberties price to pay, but if refusing someone the ability to go to a football match abroad for three weeks every four years will save England the humiliation that we all feel at the actions of oafs, it is not too high a price.
My right hon. Friend made a suggestion back then with which most commentators agree. The same suggestion has been made on both sides of the House tonight. The Home Secretary said two years ago that he would sit down and work on the idea. I know that he has been busy; many problems have crossed his desk since then, and we have


all heard the numerous statements that he has had to make about them. However, he has spent two years sitting down and working on it, and nothing has emerged. That is unacceptable. He had an opportunity in 1998, in 1999 and again this year before the European championships began to pass legislation through the House with the support of the Opposition. He refused to do so.
We need to know whether the Home Secretary supports legislation. If he does, when will he do something about it? He has slurred the Opposition disgracefully by saying that it is all our fault. The fact is that he holds the job of Home Secretary and he is the man who can introduce legislation with unlimited time. He has failed to do so. The outside world—Europe, the football supporters and others—criticises him, and is right to do so. UEFA and the football supporters are entitled to say that the right hon. Gentleman has not done enough because he has not done enough.
It is feeble for the Government to say that they gave 1,000 names to the Dutch and the Belgians and that they sent warning letters to half that number, telling them that it would be rough for them if they went to Holland or Belgium. The German reaction to a similar problem was to turn back 2,500 people. They visited each of them and either marked or took away their passports. The Germans compiled good lists of the likely football hooligans, and set up border controls to ensure that those people did not get through. The result was that only 31 German, but 800 England, supporters were arrested.
The same problem was identified in 1998, but there was a different response. As both countries had that problem in 1998, it would hardly be surprising if people in UEFA wondered what had happened since then. They might compare the proactive approach of the Germans, which resulted in far less criminality by their supporters, with the lackadaisical approach of the Home Secretary, which led to 800 English people being deported from Belgium—the figure is rising all the time.
To say that this national humiliation is the fault, among others, of UEFA—as did the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—he criticised alcohol, which is fair enough—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he did not criticise UEFA, but he did. He said that it was quite wrong of the organisation to make that threat, but the fact is that UEFA has had enough. His speech deserves little comment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) says that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey beat me once, which is true but not relevant to this debate.
Several hon. Members—including the hon. Member for West Ham—pointed out that tabloid language was most unhelpful. We all agree on that. It was said that alcohol is a problem, as, of course, it is. It was said that the yob culture was all wrong and that we must do something about it, but no one knew quite what we could do.
We were left with some clear conclusions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. He said, first, that the Government had not done enough to change the law and that, secondly, a culture had developed in which yobs and oafs could get away with their behaviour. He pointed out that the number of police had been cut dramatically by the Government.
My right hon. Friend said—fairly—that he was not trying to make a party political point on the matter, but I want to do so. The Government have cut police numbers by 2,500; there are 3,500 fewer specials and 90 police stations are closing every year. In such an atmosphere of slack law and order, it is not surprising that people think they can get away with it.
My right hon. Friend said that there should be a policy of zero tolerance towards football violence. During the years of Conservative Government, constant attempts were made, year after year, to meet the problems as they emerged and to clamp down on them—the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) criticised that. The reason that the hon. Member for West Ham could say that we had sorted out the problems in the grounds was partly due to the action of the FA—of course—and partly to that of the clubs. However, in large part, it was due to measures passed in 1985 by the Conservative Government to crack down on alcohol abuse in grounds and to the Public Order Act 1986, which created new offences that cut down on the abuses that had been occurring.
The Football Spectators Act 1989 for the first time imposed restrictions to prevent people from going to international matches by compelling them to attend police stations during the match. The Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were passed. As each problem emerged, the Conservatives passed laws to ensure that it was addressed.
No one claims that all the problems can be solved at a stroke. As soon as one is resolved, another emerges. However, we need a rigorous attitude. We need a Government who are prepared to take action when it is needed. Football violence and yobbery is a national curse; it must be dealt with rigorously. It is no good for the Government to say that they will look at the problem and then to fail to do so. It is no good for them to say that they will solve the problem one day and that they have held another seminar—as the Minister almost always does—sweet words, but no action. We need a commitment to legislation now. Will the Minister tell us that he will introduce legislation and, if so, when? We want action and we want it now.
The Home Secretary said that only a small number of those who were deported were known to the authorities as football hooligans. What about the football hooligans we know about? Eddie Curtis, the head of the hooligan spotting team, said that most of the main undesirables—the criminals on the NCIS list—had got into Holland and Belgium. I do not want to read more headlines, because the Government have failed to curtail the liberties of such people for three weeks every four years. Let us have some action—let us solve the problem.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have debated a serious subject, and I genuinely thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for tabling it. I welcome the debate. We have heard some outstanding speeches, and I hope that no one will be offended if I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who made an excellent speech, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who made a first-class speech. I shall not follow him in his speculations as to the motives of UEFA


and so on, but I am sure the whole House wishes him well in his efforts with the 2006 world cup. I pay credit to the intelligence with which he so powerfully addresses the issues.
It was a shame that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) descended to crude party politics.

Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way, give way."] When the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke about small numbers, I thought that he might have been referring to the fact that, at times during the debate, only one, two or a maximum of three Opposition Back Benchers were in the Chamber. I wondered whether that reflected a general unhappiness with the stance taken by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
As the violence two nights ago demonstrates, the key point is that international football hooliganism is not the exclusive property of English troublemakers. However, the record of English hooligans outstrips that of all their competitors. We have all noted, in various ways, that we are heartily sick of their boorish, offensive, threatening and sometimes violent behaviour.
Several hon. Members rightly asked what individuals could do in such circumstances. To avoid individual responsibility is absolutely wrong. Individuals must take responsibility for their acts; they must behave in a sportsmanlike way; they must focus on good conduct and respect others. That is critically important, as several hon. Members pointed out.
The question being debated today is what the Government can do about those matters. That is a legitimate subject for debate, and I shall respond with three points. First, I shall describe what the Government can and should do operationally. Secondly, I shall set out what can be done legislatively—referring especially to the issues raised in a good speech by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has a fine record of fighting for such matters. Thirdly, I shall discuss the general social and cultural issues that were raised by several hon. Members.
On operational matters, policing is extremely important. The achievement of effective policing of football in this country and our expertise—manifested during Euro 96 and in our domestic games—are powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) used those points to make a good argument for holding the 2006 world cup in this country. We want to lend that expertise to other countries. We discussed with Denmark, Holland and Belgium how policing could be strengthened throughout the continent. That is important. I had two meetings with Turkey's Minister of the Interior to discuss those matters in relation to his country's policing issues.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—who is not in his place—asked about intelligence. The police devote extensive resources to keeping close tabs on the most active football hooligans—often at great risk to the officers involved. The House will understand that I cannot reveal details, but outstanding work is done by spotters and intelligence liaison officers, and the whole House will share in paying tribute to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
It is worth highlighting the work done in the European Union—by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, in Tampere, and the Prime Minister in Feira—to ensure closer liaison between criminal justice systems: not something the previous Government would have done. We are committed to effective joint working, which is critical in this, as in so many other respects. An important element is the international agreements with Holland and Belgium in particular and the operational discussions. Our police have a strong and positive relationship with forces in the rest of the European Union; the UK ports operations, which we continue to intensify, is an example of how joint working operates. I am sure that Opposition Members wish to encourage that work, which is critical to everything that we do and to which we are greatly committed.
We have done a lot, but much more needs to be done at every turn—including the international environment, both judicially and operationally. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for West Chelmsford focused on legislation. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that our legislation is already among the toughest in Europe. There is an argument as to whether Germany's laws are tougher in some respects, given that country's different political and judicial traditions, but Britain is at the cutting edge of tough legislation. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 built on the work of the previous Government and reflects a consistent tradition across all parties of seeking to strengthen effective legislation against hooliganism.
I acknowledge that more can be done. The passports legislation associated with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford was the subject of a party knockabout in today's debate, but we are looking at doing more in an appropriate way. My right hon. Friend referred to merging domestic and international banning orders. We have made announcements about stopping people from returning to the Low Countries and partnerships with clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham also made a number of specific proposals for strengthening existing legislation.
I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who put his points extremely effectively, that we are prepared to legislate—including on naming and shaming. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made important points in that respect. Key to that is that any legislative change that we might have made would have had little or no impact on events in the Low Countries at this time.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister accept that it is necessary to have the sort of football behaviour order that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) proposed two years ago? If so, when will one be introduced? Is it correct—as was said by Eddie Curtis, head of the spotting team—that most of the undesirables are in Holland and Belgium as we speak?

Mr. Clarke: That is not the information we have from NCIS. Mr. Curtis made it clear that he is deeply frustrated with the failure of the courts to use their existing powers to impose banning orders—a point also made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. We are considering tightening or extending legislation—including football behaviour orders. There is plenty of scope for partisan knockabout, but any serious review of recent events in the


Low Countries and what must be done shows that legislative change of the kind that preoccupies the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire would not have resolved the current situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made effective points about yob culture. Twenty six per cent. of men born in 1968 had convictions by the age of 24, and nearly 10 per cent. had convictions for violence against the person, sexual offences or robbery—an appalling picture of the society that has developed and that reflects convictions that did not necessarily have anything to do with football violence. We have to turn that around.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned law and order in the community. Other issues that need to be addressed include the way in which young people are brought up, xenophobia in the media, law and order, education and alcohol. One Opposition Member sneered about seminars that bring together people dealing with alcohol-related issues, but over 18 Tory years nothing was done. Alcohol is a big factor in crime. The alcohol industry, retail and licensing trades want to work on that connection—and the White Paper on licensing addresses some of the issues. Alcohol is important is looking for the motive force behind crime—almost as important as drugs, in some respects.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and others mentioned peer pressure and families. Individualism is to be found in some people but—I am not making a party political point—the phrase, "There is no such thing as society" was extremely damaging. It might be argued that it is okay to say, "There's no such thing as society," but I fundamentally disagree. Government policies on crime reduction partnerships put in place by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the initiatives in education—by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—in health and in other areas are aimed at building communities and getting people to work together in an acknowledgement that society is important.
There are no quick fixes, but we must work in that direction rather than in the opposite direction that we inherited. That will be difficult, but we are introducing a series of measures focused on all the issues that I have mentioned. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to vote against the Opposition motion—which is all about short-term, blame-culture fixes—and to vote for the Government amendment, which identifies the real problems and supports measures to change society in a way that will eliminate football hooliganism in future, which is what we all want.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 363.

Division No. 235]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul



Blunt, Cnspin


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Body, sir Richard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Boswell, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Burns, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Madel, Sir David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Maginnis, Ken


(Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mates, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


(Rushcliffe)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Norman, Archie


Curry, Rt Hon David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, lain
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spicer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Johnson Smith,
Whittingdale, John


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Key, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Willetts, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Leigh, Edward
Yeo, Tim


Letwin, Oliver
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Stephen Day and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainger, Nick
Ballard, Jackie


Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)
Banks, Tony


Allan, Richard
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Beard, Nigel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Begg, Miss Anne


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)






Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Best, Harold
(B'ham Hodge H)


Blackman, Liz
Dawson, Hilton


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Dismore, Andrew


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dobbin, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Borrow, David
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drew, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brake, Tom
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Breed, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Efford, Clive


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Ennis, Jeff


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Fisher, Mark


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flint, Caroline


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


(NE Fife)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Casale, Roger
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gidley, Sandra


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chidgey, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coaker, Vernon
Hancock, Mike


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hanson, David


Cohen, Harry
Harris, Dr Evan


Coleman, Iain
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy


Crausby, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


(Copeland)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John
(B'ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mudie, George


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mullin, Chris


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Naysmith, Dr Doug


(Welwyn HaWeld)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


(Wolvem'ton SW)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Öpik, Lembit


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keetch, Paul
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pearson, Ian


Kemp, Fraser
Pendry, Tom


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Perham, Ms Linda


Khabra, Piara S
Pickthall, Colin


Kidney, David
Pike, Peter L


Kilfoyle, Peter
Plaskitt, James


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Pond, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pope, Greg


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Pound, Stephen


Laxton, Bob
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lepper, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Purchase, Ken


Linton, Martin
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Livsey, Richard
Quinn, Lawrie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rapson, Syd


Llwyd, Elfyn
Raynsford, Nick


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCabe, Steve
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


(Makerfield)
Rooney, Terry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McIsaac, Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Salter, Martin


McNulty, Tony
Sanders, Adrian


MacShane, Denis
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shaw, Jonathan


Mallaber, Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Singh, Marsha


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Milbum, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mitchell, Austin
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George


Moriey, Elliot
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)






Stinchcombe, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Stoate, Dr Howard
Tynan, Bill


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stringer, Graham
Wareing, Robert N


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Watts, David


Stunell, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Sutcliffe, Gerry
White, Brian


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Dewsbuiy)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
(Swansea W)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Willis, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wilson, Brian


Timms, Stephen
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wood, Mike


Touhig, Don
Woodward, Shaun


Trickett, Jon
Wooias, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. David Clelland and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House wholly deplores the violence in Belgium during the Euro 2000 competition perpetrated by United Kingdom citizens, and condemns the irresponsibility and criminality of those involved; welcomes the good co-operation between the British police and National Criminal Intelligence Service with the law enforcement agencies in Belgium, the Netherlands and France by which a large number of individuals with banning orders from football-related convictions against them have been prevented from travelling to Belgium and the Netherlands; strongly supports the many measures already taken by Her Majesty's Government, the police and other agencies; and endorses the further measures announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday.

Government Planning Policy

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the apparent intention of Ministers to ignore the recent vote by members of SERPLAN to limit the number of new houses built in the South East and to 'punish' members of SERPLAN for taking that decision; calls on Ministers to abandon their attempts to impose overall figures for new housebuilding on regions of the country; deplores the Government's failure even to meet its own targets for new development on brownfield sites; regrets the continuing decline of towns and cities and, on almost the first anniversary of the Rogers Report, the Government's failure to address the vital issues of urban regeneration, or growing internal migration and the drift from towns and cities to the countryside, or homelessness; and calls upon the Government to halt the decline of the cities, bring forward measures to protect greenfield sites and the Green Belt, and take steps to return more power to local communities to decide planning and housebuilding priorities.
First, I am sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions cannot be with us this evening. I understand that his mother is not well and I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in saying that we fully understand the reasons for his absence. We wish his mother well and hope that she has a speedy recovery.
Several of my colleagues may believe that the timing of this debate is not ideal but, from the point of view of the residents and councillors in the south-east, it is apposite as the Serplan period of consultation has just concluded. As a result, our debate on an issue that has caused people in the south-east great anxiety and tension will give the Minister for Housing and Planning an opportunity to discard all his speeches in previous Opposition day debates on the matter and put to one side the well-thumbed copies of statements of denial and all the talk of moving away from predict and provide. It will enable him, for the first time, to come clean on how he plans to answer the clear response that the councillors and residents of the south-east have given as part of the Serplan process that he created.

Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: No, I want to make progress.
The issue is a formative one for people in this country, not just in the countryside or the south-east, but in the inner cities, the north and the south-west. Conservative Members believe that the Government's policy on house building is a national folly. As my distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) put it, it is like
taking a carpet knife to an old master.—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 103]
The policy perpetuates the vicious circle of migration from the north, the loss of countryside for ever, congestion on our roads and the decline of our inner cities. Quite simply, it is the wrong houses in the wrong places.

Mr. Michal Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that not only is that happening in the


south-east, but people in the west midlands are equally disturbed about the use of the green belt? Does he not think it an outrage that some 5,000 new homes will be built in south Staffordshire, while brownfield sites in the centre of Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and other towns remain undeveloped?

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and, as ever, is a potent voice for the west midlands.
Against the background of a perpetuating cycle of declining inner cities and the concreting over of the countryside, the Government claim, as the Minister has done in previous debates, that they have decentralised the process; that an extra 200,000 houses can be built in the south-east with no additional use of greenfield sites; that, incredibly, there is no such thing as north-south migration, and that the new housing in the south-east is needed for the sons and daughters of the existing population. Those claims fly in the face of all the facts.

Mr. Martin Salter: What would the hon. Gentleman say to people in the Thames valley who are looking forward to the extra 200 police officers that are to be provided and to the Police Federation, which is saying that the price of housing is so high that those police officers will not be able to afford to stay in the Thames valley? Does he accept that his party's policy is a recipe for running down our public services, and that we need to provide affordable housing for key public service workers, such as police officers, firefighters and health workers?

Mr. Norman: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is for his constituents to decide how many houses are built in the area. We have the confidence to allow local people to make such decisions because we know that they will be right. I do not know whether he has the same confidence.
The Government have erected a facade of deception, are juggling the numbers and are responsible for overbearing centralisation. Most bizarre of all is their claim to have decentralised and to have moved away from predict and provide. They claim to have moved to a five-year planning horizon, when the local plan for every council in the south-east is worked out on a 10-year basis and we all know that major infrastructure and development projects need a more distant time horizon.
The real process is one of protracted negotiation, and of the Government predicting more houses and pressurising councils to offer up the maximum, as they pressurised Serplan to do. They issue diktats when local councils do not meet central needs. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the Minister's petulant response to the Serplan consultation and the absurd claims that he made only last week in environment questions that Conservative Members have made this a party political issue. We all know, as he should, that the councillors and residents of the south-east have made this an issue because they deeply resent his overbearing approach.
Some councils made their position clear long before the Serplan process took place. Jane Pitman of Hertfordshire county council said:
Anything above what Serplan recommended is unacceptable.

Richard Payne of Bedfordshire county council said:
In Bedfordshire we have taken heed of Government advice and consulted every district council, parish council and stakeholder with an 80 per cent. response. Almost all of these were totally opposed to the type of increase that the Government is proposing.
Those councillors were speaking for local residents long before the Serplan process took place.
All we are saying is that local residents and councillors of the south-east should be listened to first, and if the Minister is at all sincere about moving away from predict and provide, he will respond by telling us that he will take their views into account.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The hon. Gentleman referred to councillors in Bedfordshire who expressed concerns about additional housing requirements some time ago. Can he tell the House whether they objected in 1996, when the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, required Bedfordshire county council to provide 2,100 extra dwellings?

Mr. Norman: It has been an astonishing feature of the Minister's response, every time that the House has debated this matter, that he refers to past issues. He is now responsible for planning; he devised the Serplan process, and he, not we, said that the Government had moved away from predict and provide. He has come up with the shallow pretence of decentralisation. I could go on quoting local councils for a long time, if he wishes, but he is answerable, and it is for him to tell us whether he will listen to the views of local people and councils. He will have an opportunity to do so in a moment.
Is not the truth that the process has been a charade, and the idea that we have moved to a five-year process of review and monitor is complete nonsense? Councils now preparing their local plan are working on a 10-year basis. The Minister is interested in consultation only as long as the answer is yes, and he is interested in decentralisation only as long as councillors will do what they are told.
I know that the Minister has said that he was misreported but, for the record, will he clearly retract his comments in The Sunday Telegraph and in radio interviews to the effect that Serplan's views would be ignored and that councillors who had objected to his proposals would be punished? Will he apologise to the residents and councillors of the south-east?

Mr. Raynsford: I will not retract those comments because I never made them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I assured him in the House last week that I was grossly misrepresented in The Sunday Telegraph. I have always said that we will listen to the views of Serplan and others, and I am only sorry that he did not, in the normal custom of the House, accept that assurance and that he has carried on peddling this nonsense.

Mr. Norman: Of course we accept what the Minister has to say, although it is not what The Sunday Telegraph had to say. That is a matter for the Minister and The Sunday Telegraph. However, he has a chance to respond today and to say not only that he was misreported but what he is going to do about this issue. The consultation process is closed. He has a chance to say that


he will take all views into account and that he will cease his bullying tactics. He can then demonstrate that he is sincere about decentralisation.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman retract, and apologise for, the grossly insulting comments that he made about my constituents in Toxteth during his visit to Liverpool yesterday? Or was he misquoted?

Mr. Norman: I am delighted that the hon. Lady raises that matter because it gives me the chance to point out, as I will demonstrate later, that building executive homes in the south-east perpetuates the migration from the inner cities in the north. When I was in Toxteth and in Kensington, which is also a deprived area in Liverpool, I said that it is a tragedy that over the past few years the Government have put so much money into building fortress-like houses and buildings in deprived areas, that they cannot now afford to provide adequate community policing. That means that the crime level in Liverpool has risen by 3 per cent. in the past year and that during the three years of this Government, the number of policemen on the beat in the city has declined by 160.

Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend think that it is perfectly reasonable to doubt the Government's bona fides when they say that they will listen to Serplan's complaints, given that they not only refused to listen to Sussex, but turned their back and told Sussex that it should jolly well have as many houses as they said? Sussex took the Government to court, but they went ahead. Why should we believe that they will change their mind now?

Mr. Norman: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on the subject, and the Minister will want to respond directly to the point he makes later. This is not just a matter of decentralisation; even on a central view, the Government's policy is wholly wrong.
As the Minister has said, his own projections show that 70 per cent. of the new household requirement for the next 20 years is for single people. Most of them are elderly people, living alone. A further 10 per cent. approximately is for single parents, who are much in need of affordable housing. They want to continue to live in the towns and cities where they have always lived, yet there is no evidence that the process that has been embarked upon of building 50 per cent. or more of the houses on green fields in the south-east will deliver any such result.
Serplan recommended that 40 per cent. of the new housing should be affordable, but the Minister ignored its recommendation in his guidance. Only two months ago, Shelter stated that it was concerned about the inadequate provision for affordable and social housing in that guidance. Only a week ago, homelessness figures were published showing that priority homeless cases are at the highest level for the past four years. Far from providing homes for the elderly and less-well-off, which is the real challenge and real need, the policy will deliver identikit executive homes—the same type and design in Yorkshire

as in Kent, in Suffolk as in Cornwall—and it will leave the elderly, the less able and single people behind in the inner cities.

Mr. Peter Bradley: rose—

Hon. Members: Tory gain.

Mr. Bradley: Looking at some Opposition Members, I think that Tory Regaine would be more to the point, especially in the case of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). What are the right houses and where are the right places for them? If the hon. Gentleman allows local authorities the discretion to take their decisions without national guidance and they refuse to accommodate those houses, what steps would he take to ensure that housing provision was made for those who need it most?

Mr. Norman: The right houses are those that local people decide on under an obligation to provide for local needs. We believe that many local authorities in areas of economic expansion in the north as well as the south will decide to build more houses because they want to fuel expansion for their local employers. We will trust local people to take the right decisions, properly informed by the resources of central Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Norman: I shall not give way because I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). She made the mistake of referring to migration from the cities of the north and urban renewal. Not only are the wrong type of houses being built, but the process will perpetuate the cycle of urban decline and the loss of green fields. There has been much contention about the facts, and the facts about migration from one region to another are less than clear. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that he does not believe that migration from the north to the south is an issue. In his statement on the Serplan consultation, he said:
Let there be no doubt that demand for additional housing in the south-east is not the result of massive north-south migration, but mainly the result of migration within the south-east, particularly from London to surrounding towns and villages—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 864.]
The figures show that the actual pattern is one of migration, as we all know, from the cities to the countryside, from the north and midlands to London and from London to the south. The arithmetic is complicated. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members jump in, let me share some basic facts with them. Between 1991 and 1997, net migration from the north was 114,000 people. Net migration to the south-east was 132,000, and net migration from London was 32,000 to the south-east in 1997. There is a clear pattern, which we all recognise because we see it on the ground, and those hon. Members who have constituencies in the north will recognise it, too. People are moving out of the cities into the countryside, from the midlands to London and from London to the south-east. It is simply nonsense to say that migration from our cities is not a major problem—it is.
Two thirds of the new houses to be built in the south-east under the Government's policy will be occupied not by single people but by families; not by


people who live in the south-east, but by people leaving London. That gives the lie to the Minister's claim that the proposals are about accommodating local people. In The Independent of 13 June, he said:
it is about housing for the sons and daughters of existing residents, and people who are essential to the local economy.
What complete nonsense. His own projections state that the requirement is not for those sons and daughters; 70 per cent. of it is for single people, most of whom are elderly. We know the track record—executive homes are being built, more than 60 per cent. of which have three bedrooms or more. Sons or daughters indeed.
Does the Minister think that all the new houses in the two new towns in world-class countryside in Devon, in Cambridge and in Ashford, which will treble in size, will be occupied by sons and daughters of the people of Ashford, Cambridge, Plymouth or Exeter? That suggestion is simply ludicrous and untenable. We know that it is not true, and he knows that it is not true. If he thinks that, he must explain how Ashford can treble its population without importing people from London and the north. We all know that it is complete nonsense.
The problem exists not only in the south, but in the cities of the north. I could take hon. Members to areas in the centre of Leeds that are 3 miles from a thriving commercial centre—the boom town of the north—where there are housing estates with empty homes, with 50 per cent. of people unemployed and with little local investment. I could take them to places 10 miles out of Leeds, such as Thorp Arch or Boston Spa, and show them executive homes being built on green fields so that income-generating families can move out of the centre and travel back in their cars to work. Is that sustainable? What has that to do with the Government's transport strategy or inner city regeneration?
We have to accept that, if executive homes are built in the countryside, there will be a declining school roll in the city, or an empty house left behind in the most deprived urban areas. Shops will be boarded up in deprived areas, as I saw in Toxteth only yesterday. Crime rates will rise in the inner city, as I saw in Liverpool only yesterday, and another commuter will have to travel back in from the green fields, adding to congestion.
The defining characteristic of the great cities of Europe—Paris, Dusseldorf, Munich, Amsterdam, Madrid or Barcelona—is that they are residential cities in which families want to live and work. The consequence of Government policy is that it will perpetuate the trend of people migrating from the cities. The hard fact is that until we get entrepreneurs and developers to apply their ingenuity to redeveloping brownfield land first and greenfield land only last, we will never create the accommodation that income-earning people need to stay in this country's great cities.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he mentioned my constituency. Does he accept that, if new homes are not built in Cambridge, many of the sons and daughters of local residents will not be able to afford houses there? Is he aware of the work of Professor Christine Whitehead, who has said that Cambridge will be unable to sustain its labour force after the middle of the decade or provide affordable houses for its workers?

That has been backed up by staff from Addenbrooke's hospital, who are concerned about the difficulty of recruiting workers into the health service in my region.

Mr. Norman: As the hon. Lady knows, the point about Cambridge, which the Minister will accept, is that the extra houses built there will not only be for sons and daughters of local people, but for people migrating out of Leicester, Birmingham and other parts of the country, and they will leave behind a declining population. She might like to tell us whether she is in favour of redefining the green belt and building on the green belt around Cambridge. Is the Minister in favour of that, too? Is not the truth behind the Government's determination to build so many houses on green fields that the green belt is no longer sacrosanct? Is that not exactly why the Minister now says that the green belt is no longer safe under Labour and needs continual revision and redefining?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has made another completely false allegation. I have never said that the green belt is not safe under Labour. Will he withdraw that completely unfounded allegation?

Mr. Norman: The Minister says that he has not said that the green belt is not safe under Labour; during his speech, he will have plenty of chances to explain what he meant when he said that the green belt has to be constantly redefined and revised. In Cambridge, in Newcastle and in the south-west we see that the green belt is no longer safe under this Government.

Mr. James Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour leader of North Hertfordshire district council, Councillor David Kearns, recently attacked the Government? He said:

We feel very let down. The Government claims to be committed to … the environment and regenerating urban areas … now we have them supporting plans to rape 2,000 acres of Green Belt
around Stevenage.

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The rape of Stevenage and the removal of the green belt around it—one of the Deputy Prime Minister's first acts on coming to power—signalled his intentions for the future very clearly.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the green belt and Labour's record on the Cambridge green belt, is he aware that the Labour city council, supported by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), was the authority that pushed for a review of the green belt to free up sites inside the Cambridge green belt for large-scale additional development?

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is correct.

Mr. Anthony Steen: (Totnes) rose—

Mr. Norman: I want to make progress.

Mr. Steen: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he give way on that point?

Mr. Norman: Yes.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has mentioned brownfield sites. Is he aware that the Government's plans for


new-build houses depend entirely on building 60 per cent. of new housing on brownfield sites and that not only are the local authorities unhappy about those plans, but that the European Union has ruled that the Government cannot build on brownfield sites if that entails giving a grant to the owners of the land because that would be an unfair subsidy? Is he aware of that problem and do the Government realise that their entire housing policy will be destroyed if that EU ruling is upheld?

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is something of an expert on these subjects and I know that he wants to speak later. As ever, he has made an original and different contribution.
The price of building in the south-east will be borne not only by the inner-city areas of the north, but by the taxpayer. The south-east is one of the most congested parts of the country and the infrastructure is simply not available to accommodate the 900,000 new houses that the Minister wants to have built there. Building 900,000 new houses implies not only new housing, but new roads, street lighting, hospitals and schools. We estimate that such a number of new houses also implies 2,000 km of new road at minimum, as they would have to be connected to other areas, as well as 3,250 hospital beds, 300,000 school places and a total price tag of £7.7 billion.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Norman: No, I want to make progress.
However, there is no provision for that investment and no plan to provide for it. The roads are more congested and the railways more crowded than ever. Investment in roads is declining. In the south-west, there are other problems—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) will want to mention those to do with sewerage—and concerns over water resources. The Government have made no provision for the flood plains of Kent and none for renewable energy. That is not environmental sustainability, but environmental vandalism.
Incredibly, the Deputy Prime Minister claims that 200,000 extra houses can be built in the south-east with no extra use of green fields. However, the Government give the impression of simply playing with numbers and ratios. As he said in the Frost interview on Sunday:
People think, "Isn't this about spinning and spinning is about misleading people".
That is exactly the situation. The Government have claimed that those dwellings can be accommodated through terraced housing and greater density of building. They pray in aid Poundbury, but the hard arithmetic shows that to get an extra 200,000 houses in the south-east the density will have to be 50 houses a hectare greater than that achieved in London itself.

Mr. Raynsford: No.

Mr. Norman: Yes, that means the loss of green spaces in the towns and villages. Yes, it means the return of 1960s and 1970s high-rise.

Mr. Raynsford: Wrong again.

Mr. Norman: The Minister knows that the targets cannot be delivered in the south-east. He knows that the

weight of housebuilding is overwhelming. [Interruption.] Instead of shaking his head, when he makes his speech why does not he list the counties and county councils in the south-east that believe that they can achieve 60 per cent. of new building on brownfield sites at that rate of construction over 20 years? Why does not he tell us exactly how that will be achieved and describe the implications of the 60 per cent. figure? What densities will be required to achieve it? Why does not he come clean?

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Norman: No, I am about to conclude.
The challenge for Britain today is to convert existing accommodation for single and elderly people, to rebuild our inner cities, to restore the ownership of neighbourhoods by local people—[Interruption.]—to revitalise local government—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) wish to make a point?
The challenge today is to revitalise local government and to protect our countryside, yet instead we have the most centralised policy ever, a determination to ignore local views and steamroller local councils—a policy that will perpetuate the decline of the cities and do nothing to address the needs of the elderly and the less well off. The countryside will be concreted over with identikit executive homes. Quite simply, we will get the wrong houses in the wrong places.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy under the new regional planning policy arrangements, including a target for building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land and the tightening of planning controls on out of town shopping and ending the profligate use of land; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and improving the use of all land and preventing piecemeal greenfield development; believes the Government's planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to sustainable growth, safeguarding the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance; supports the targeting of regeneration initiatives in areas of greatest need and the Government's inter-linked policies for revitalising towns and cities and protecting the countryside; and applauds the Government's aim of giving everyone the opportunity of a decent home and recognises that the doubling of housing investment and other social housing reforms introduced by this Government are creating stronger, safer and more sustainable communities.
First let me express my appreciation for the thoughtful and kind words of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) about the Deputy Prime Minister's mother. The whole House will join us both in wishing her a speedy and full recovery.
The choice of this evening's debate—our sixth on the subject in the past three years—is telling. To focus attention on planning and housing when England's football team kick off in a crucial European championship


match implies either extraordinary stupidity or great political acumen. Could it be that the masterminds of Tory central office were unaware of the Euro 2000 timetable when they sought the debate? That is possible, but even I cannot believe they are so crassly incompetent as not to have realised that tonight the nation would be glued to the television screen—not, I hasten to add, to watch the parliamentary channel.
If we give those masterminds the benefit of the doubt and assume that they knew about the England-Romania match, what is the object of the exercise? I suspect that two thoughts were uppermost in their minds. The first was to provide a perfect cover for another lacklustre performance by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, whose legendary ability to empty the House will be excused on grounds of football mania. Secondly, having convincingly lost the past five debates on the subject, the Opposition clearly relish the chance to initiate a debate when no one will take a blind bit of notice of what they say. That way, they can masquerade as a concerned Opposition without having once again to witness their hopelessly inadequate case falling apart in the full glare of publicity.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are twice as many Conservative as Labour Members present? We regard this subject as significant, whereas we can assume that the vast majority of Labour Members have nothing better to do than gawp at the television.

Mr. Raynsford: The speech of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells explains the empty seats only too clearly. Hon. Members were driven away by tedium.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government Whip to go around imploring Labour Members to stay in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are considering a serious subject. I suggest that we deal with it seriously. I call Mr. Raynsford.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult to comply with your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am interrupted the moment I rise to my feet. However, I shall give way.

Mr. Robathan: First, will the Minister confirm that Government Whips determine the days on which specific business will be considered, and that they allocated today for Opposition business? Secondly, will he confirm that, apart from a few louts and perhaps Labour Members, most people in this country believe that the subject that we are considering is much more important than whether the English football team beat Romania tonight?

Mr. Raynsford: We are holding an Opposition day debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that

the Opposition choose the timing of such debates. His remarks were offensive. I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that it is inappropriate to attempt to compare hon. Members with the louts who have besmirched this country's reputation in Brussels.
In contrast to the Opposition, we relish the opportunity for a thorough and full debate on the subject, and I hope that, by the end of this evening's debate, the England team will have scored as many goals as us.
Any serious analysis of the issue must start with the recognition that we face some tough and serious challenges that require thoughtful and mature political responses. We live on a small island; we are already one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, and we have a clear responsibility to protect our countryside and our environment.
We have an equally clear responsibility to meet the housing needs of our country. They include the needs of the sons and daughters of existing residents who want to continue to live in areas where they were born and grew up, and those of key workers, such as nurses, teachers and police officers, who are essential to vital public services. We must also meet the needs of those who are fundamental to economic success, so that businesses are not prevented from expansion and development by lack of housing for their work force. To pretend that there is an easy way of reconciling the potentially conflicting pressures is facile. So too is the assumption—much promoted by the Opposition since they became an Opposition but different from the line that they took when they were in government—that the problem can be resolved by allowing local councils to put up the shutters and say, "No more housing in our area."

Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Minister consider visiting my constituency? He could then visit residents in Pagham, and hear about their fight to stop a development of 700 houses off Hook lane, or residents in Felpham, who face the prospect of 700 houses in their village, or residents in Littlehampton, who face the building of 1,000 houses in Toddington. If he met those people, he would understand the genuine anxiety caused to people in west Sussex by the amount of building that will happen as a result of the Government's policies.

Mr. Raynsford: Most housing that is being built is on sites for which the previous Government granted permission. I was trying to make it clear that those who are worried about the countryside and those who are anxious about the housing needs that I outlined are equally concerned. The issue requires balance and thoughtful and careful policies, not facile, knee-jerk reactions.
Let me quote the words of the last Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in a chapter he contributed to a volume entitled "Town and Country", which was published in 1998. He began by making a robust defence of his estimate of the demand for 4.4 million homes up to 2016. Though what I assume is a typing error in the book alarmingly suggests that he thought that 4.4 million homes would be required by 2006, I cannot believe that that is the case. He goes on:
If we accept that there is a demand for 4.4 million or more new units we could of course simply refuse to allow the demand to be met. The trouble with that answer is that the people who would be


hit are those least able to cope with the result, and often the most deserving of a new home. It will not be the richer and more competent members of society, since they can afford to pay the high prices which such a shortage would inevitably produce. It is also quite clear that no government would see this solution as remotely politically possible …
How prescient of the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that his party has no prospect of returning to government.

Mr. Gummer: If the Minister had continued with the chapter, he might have noticed that I suggested that the real problem was the location of the houses. Before we build the houses, we say that everybody will live where they want to live. We then build the houses in a specific place. When people move into those houses, we say, "We were right to build them there because that's where they have moved." The Minister should be prepared to ensure that the new homes that are needed are the sort of homes that one-person households want, and that they are not built on greenfield sites, but in our cities and places other than the south-east.

Mr. Raynsford: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to ensure that houses are built to meet need. In the chapter that I cited, he rightly highlighted the growth of single-person households. He also said that we should try to build the houses on brownfield sites. That is the Government's policy. His chapter, which was mostly admirable, is far from the policy that Conservative Front-Bench Members espouse. He might reflect on the extent to which the Conservative party in opposition has departed from the right hon. Gentleman's position when in government.

Mr. Peter Lilley: The Minister claimed that the bulk of demand, which he aims to meet, will come from single-person households. Why have the Government agreed to the rape of the green belt in Hitchin to build 10,000 houses if the bulk of the need is for single-person households? Why are the majority of the houses that are being built for families? That is the question that my constituents ask most frequently.

Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our many exchanges about the issue, Hertfordshire county council took the view that it was better to concentrate the development that was inevitable in Hertfordshire in one area rather than spread it throughout the county. That was the basis for the decision. Although the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with it, it was a local decision.

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am trying to answer his first question. If he waits to see the pattern of development, he will hopefully see the benefits of the policies that we are introducing to ensure mixed developments through a proper mix of housing types and sizes, and affordable and market housing. That is preferable to the proliferation of executive boxes that characterised the planning policies of the Government of whom he was a member.

Mr. Lilley: I shall clarify the position. The decision to which the Minister refers was not a democratic local

decision. It was taken by the ruling group of Liberal Democrats and Labour members, with a majority of one. They refused to let the full council consider it; only 14 of the 70-odd councillors in Hertfordshire voted in favour of the measure to which the Government subsequently agreed. Will the Minister now answer the question: why are the houses not for single people—who, according to the Minister, represent the bulk of demand—but for families?

Mr. Raynsford: It is always interesting to hear people justify their departure from democratic decisions with which they do not agree. It is always possible to find ways of disapproving of the majority view. That is not sensible; it is right to accept that the decision was democratic, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not. There are democratic decisions that I do not necessarily like; that is life. We should not try to repudiate decisions that we do not like on the tenuous basis that the right hon. Gentleman outlines.
I was speaking about the article by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. It continued:
People who see house prices rocket, and who find that they cannot afford the home which they once expected to buy, will take their political revenge.
Quite so. That is why, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, he was not prepared to stand aside while local authorities sought to make provision for housing needs that he thought was inadequate. Accordingly, he required Kent county council to increase its provision for housing by 2,900 dwellings in December 1996; he required Berkshire county council to increase its provision for housing by 3,000 dwellings in June 1995; and he required Bedfordshire to increase its provision for housing by 2,100 dwellings in October 1996.
That is what the Conservatives did when they were in government just four or five years ago, and to pretend now that we can do the exact opposite without adverse consequences is facile and utterly unconvincing. Indeed, to pretend that local councils can put up the shutters on new housebuilding without the unhappy results so cogently spelled out by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal in his book flies dangerously close to hypocrisy.
However, we should not simply stand aside while housebuilders gobble up acre after acre of greenfield land, as they were allowed to do in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the Conservative party was in power.

Mr. Steen: As I understand it, we are trying to get as many houses as possible built on brownfield sites. I entirely support that. The 17 June edition of Local Government First, which is my regular reading matter, states that the Government's brownfield plans will be hit by a European Union ruling. The article continues:
The European Commission has thrown Government efforts to encourage development of former industrial "brownfield" sites into disarray.
The suggestion is that if the brownfield land is owned by a company, European money will constitute a subsidy, which will distort the market, and therefore should not be allowed. Will the Government's policy on brownfield sites be thrown into disarray?

Mr. Raynsford: No, our policy will not be thrown into disarray, because we are determined to proceed with it.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are in negotiation and discussion about the implications of that European decision, which I will not say we welcomed—obviously not—but we are trying to work constructively, to ensure that our policy objectives can be taken forward.
I spoke about our commitment to ensuring that we had the policies in place to counter the threat of further insensitive, inappropriate and unnecessary greenfield development. That is why we set out a new agenda in planning policy guidance note 3 to ensure that new housing provision is concentrated wherever possible on brownfield sites; it is why we set a 60 per cent. brownfield target; and it is why we introduced a sequential approach—brownfield first, greenfield last.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been extremely generous. What does he say to the people of Shropshire, where only 40 per cent. of potential sites, including in Telford and The Wrekin, are brownfield? How on earth will the target of 60 per cent. be met?

Mr. Raynsford: Let me say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government was that no one knew how much brownfield land there was. The purpose of putting in place our national land use database is to identify more of the sites that are potentially available and of which people were not aware. As that exercise continues, I think the hon. Gentleman will be surprised. Anyone can walk around many of our cities and see the numbers of brownfield sites that are not being properly used. Our policy is to identify them.
Secondly, we accept that 60 per cent. cannot be achieved in every part of the country. In some parts we can do better; in others, we cannot. In London, about 84 per cent. of development is on brownfield sites, but across the country as a whole we are committed to a 60 per cent. target, and we will work for that.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister. I have attended several of the debates on this topic, as he knows, and I keep hearing reassuring noises to the effect that a brave new policy is being applied. Does he accept, however, that after three years that has made no practical difference whatever to the problems on the ground in Rushcliffe in southern Nottinghamshire? The hon. Gentleman will not reopen a structure plan that allocates the bulk of new housing in the county to Rushcliffe, which is almost entirely rural and suburban and has hardly any brownfield sites, and he has disregarded the applications of the city of Nottingham, which wants to develop more of the centre of Nottingham, and of councils such as Ashfield and Mansfield, which would accept more housing. After three years, the practical effect of the reassuring noises is nil. In such circumstances, consultation on our local plan simply consists of arguments about which green fields must be covered by housing.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his experience of government that policies take a certain amount of time to have effect. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal changed the policy on out-of-town shopping. The change, which was welcome and which we supported, was introduced in the early

1990s, but it was not truly effective until the late 1990s, because of extant planning permissions. That applies equally to housing.
Total disruption would result from stopping every application and starting again from scratch, which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will recognise is not a practical way forward. We are trying to give local authorities new, tougher guidance in PPG3, under which they are expected to review procedures and to apply the sequential approach.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is nodding. We have discussed the matter at length and he recognises that that is the intention. The policy is having an effect already. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is wrong to say that it is having no effect, but it will take time to have the full effect that we expect. We are determined to carry the policy forward.

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he explain to me and to the rest of the House how he will get his brownfield site policy to work in cities, when many of the cities that he is encouraging to adopt a brownfield site policy have thousands of empty properties going to waste and not being used, many of them standing semi-derelict for several years?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problem of empty properties. That is very much part of the brownfield policy. We intend to bring into use wasted sites, land and buildings. We support the Empty Homes Agency and we encourage every local authority to put in place a strategy for bringing empty homes into use. We are exploring a range of options to make that policy more effective.
We know that assets are being wasted which ought to be brought into use, and much more needs to be done in that respect. We have emphasised the importance of urban renaissance and we are putting a strong emphasis on developing areas such as the Thames gateway, where there is huge scope for substantial new development on brownfield sites and in sustainable locations. That is why we have put a new focus on high-quality design to maximise land use. We are looking for mixed developments in which people can live side by side, whether they are buying or renting, with a good element of affordable housing in new developments.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the Minister for giving way. A central and important issue is to see whether we can provide good-quality housing in greater densities than hitherto. Many of us on both sides of the House who take an interest in these matters were intrigued—there is no other word for it—by the Deputy Prime Minister's speech to the Fabian Society some months ago. In the light of what we have heard about the Government being all talk and no action, should they not by now have introduced more constructive proposals and examples of how their aim can be achieved, for us to judge? If that is a good way ahead, it will go some way towards answering the vexed question of how much greenfield land has to be built on in the next 20 years.

Mr. Raynsford: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of experience in these matters, that we need to explore practical measures that enable us to implement the brownfield initiative. That is what we are engaged in doing.
We are seeking to set in place new policies, to give local authorities new powers and new information through the national land use database, to identify sites, to bring properties into use, to set up partnerships and arrangements to allow mixed development where that is feasible, and to ensure that there are appropriate powers for land assembly—another important priority of ours—so that we can make a reality of urban regeneration. It is hugely important, and it is part of our priorities.

Mr. Paterson: rose

Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way for the last time, as I must make progress.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he answer a simple question? If only 40 per cent. of the sites available are brownfield, will fewer houses be built, or will the remaining 20 per cent. be build on greenfield sites?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously has difficulty in understanding the process. If one seeks, as we do, to increase the density of individual development, one can achieve more homes on any given amount of land. That ensures that one makes optimum use of land and stops the wasteful process of the past 20 years or so in which the vast majority of new housing has been built at incredibly low density. More than 50 per cent. of new housing built in this country in the past decade was at a density of less than 20 dwellings per hectare. That involves a profligate use of land, and we need to change that.

Mr. Steen: If the Minister cannot sort out the EU ruling, what will happen? Why does he believe that he can sort it out when subsidies are not allowed under the treaty of Rome? How are we to deal with that?

Mr. Raynsford: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question on that. The Government are working to ensure that we have in place appropriate arrangements to enable us to continue with our policy objectives, to which we are committed.
All the initiatives that I have mentioned are being taken forward by the Government to meet our two key objectives, which are to ensure that every member of our society has the prospect of a decent home, and that our countryside is protected from unnecessary and insensitive development.
As I have already said, reconciling those objectives is not easy, but it is essential if we are to meet our economic, social and environmental responsibilities. That is what the Government are determined to do.
The Opposition have made many references to Serplan, and it might therefore be helpful to the House if I spell out the new procedure for establishing regional planning guidance, which the Government have established, and refer to Serplan's role in that process. Let me remind Opposition Members that, when their Government were in power, regional planning guidance was drafted not by the local authorities, not by Serplan, but by the Government. That is what the centralising party did when it was in office. It dictated from the centre, which is what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells seems so unhappy

about. That was his party's record in government, although Conservative Members appear to have developed a strong case of selective amnesia on this point.
We changed the procedure for developing regional planning guidance. We recognised that there was a case for more meaningful participation by local authorities and their associations, such as Serplan, and all the other regional interests.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I have already told the House that I must make progress, and I fear that the hon. Gentleman will take us into rather unproductive textual analyses of European matters. However, I give way to him.

Mr. Cash: On regional planning, there is an interaction between the Minister's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, particularly with respect to assisted area status. In my constituency, there is the Grindley Lane investment area. The Government office for the west midlands, in partnership with the local authorities, to which the Minister has just referred, agreed that assisted area status should be granted to a range of villages in my constituency. That was a sweetener for the purposes of providing for the Grindley Lane investment area. Can the Minister explain why, when planning permission for that investment area was turned down, the assisted area status remained? There is now a black hole in a greenbelt area, with no justification whatever.

Mr. Raynsford: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just joined the debate, that his question goes very wide of its subject, which is housing provision and the importance of balancing the need for housing with the need to protect the countryside. As the hon. Gentleman said, the DTI has a crucial role in respect of his question. He will be aware that I am a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I give way for the last time.

Mr. Bradley: My right hon. Friend talks about the need to protect the countryside, and we all acknowledge that need. Will he take this opportunity, to draw a distinction between the party of government and the party of opposition? The latter has set its face against the development of affordable housing for rural communities—the kind of housing that they need if they are to sustain themselves for the next generation.

Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that I have already drawn a number of distinctions between the party of government and the party of opposition, and between the Opposition's mode when they were in government and their mode now that they are in opposition. I reiterate the fact that we are committed to meeting housing needs and to ensuring that people on modest incomes are not deprived of the prospect of a house by stupid policies that create house price inflation and prevent people on modest incomes from finding housing.
May I return to the subject of Serplan, which I was discussing before I was taken on a detour? We changed the procedure for developing regional planning guidance because we recognised that there was a case for more meaningful participation by Serplan and all the other regional interests. Indeed, unlike the procedure under the previous Government, whereby the Government produced draft planning guidance, Serplan produced a first draft of this guidance. The regional planning body will normally be expected to prepare the draft in consultation with other regional stakeholders, although in this case the timetable meant that Serplan could not involve other stakeholders to the extent that we would have liked.
The procedure also allows full public scrutiny of the draft at an examination in public; again, that is a new procedure to allow for more transparent decision making than applied when the Conservative party was in power. It allows the assumptions behind the draft to be tested and allows other points of view to be expressed.
In the case of the south-east, Serplan prepared the initial draft. It was then subjected to an examination in public chaired by Professor Crow. He then submitted his panel's report to the Government and, as everyone will know, the panel came to very different conclusions from those of Serplan.
Under the new procedures, the Government's role comes into play at this stage. We considered both the original Serplan draft and the panel's report, and we then issued for consultation revised regional planning guidance. Of course, many issues are covered in the process—it is not just about housing. However, as housing has been the main focus of controversy, I shall confine my remarks to this part of the process.
Our conclusion, on looking carefully at all the evidence, was that the panel had overestimated the requirements for new housing at approximately 1.1 million homes over the next 20 years. Equally, however, we were clear that the original Serplan draft had underestimated housing requirements—at around 700,000 homes over the 20-year period.
Therefore, our revised regional planning guidance made two important amendments. The first was to move away from the 20-year projections, which were an integral part of the old predict-and-provide approach that we have abandoned. Instead, we have proposed annual rates of house building, with reviews at least every five years. That allows a far more flexible response to changing demand and needs, in line with our plan, monitor and manage approach.
Our second proposal, on the basis of the evidence that we derived from current trends, from the Serplan draft and from the examination in public, was to suggest an annual build rate of 43,000 homes a year in the south-east, with a review at the end of a five-year period or earlier.

Mr. White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Serplan was drawing up its original plan, it had an independent analysis of the data, and that the panel came to a higher figure than Serplan originally put forward? The leader of my council has described the figure that Serplan is now quoting as totally irresponsible.

Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend rightly notes, Serplan reached its figure for reasons best known to itself, and did not necessarily follow all the technical advice and

guidance that it received. Clearly, it is important to look at the full range of issues when we make proposals that are crucial to the interests of the region, and we shall do that.
Our proposals, along with all our other suggested revisions to regional planning guidance, were published for consultation on 27 March, with a 12-week consultation period that ended yesterday. I am pleased to say that there has been an exceptionally heavy response to the consultation, with some 700 responses received by yesterday. We shall, of course, consider all the responses before we reach decisions. As is well known, Serplan failed on this occasion to reach a consensus about housing requirements. In the past, Serplan, like other bodies representing a range of different local authorities with differing political control, has sought to reach across the party political divide in the best interests of the region as a whole. Sadly, that did not happen on this occasion. We therefore have differing majority and minority views from Serplan. I accept Serplan's vote and we shall consider fully the proposals that come from the majority. However, we will also consider the views of the other authorities, which would normally have been involved fully in the process and been able to sign up to the conclusions. On this occasion, they have not been able to do that. We shall also consider the views of all the other interested parties, such as the regional development agencies, business and voluntary sector interests, environmental groups and those concerned with the full range of housing provision.
The suggestion put about by the Opposition that we will ignore Serplan—repeated in the wording of their motion—is entirely unfounded, as I made clear in the House last week. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells continues to peddle this nonsense, and that he did not have the courtesy to withdraw false and unfounded allegations about my comments.
The hon. Gentleman's allegations are as unfounded as his claim that we intend to cover the countryside in housing. That is pretty rich, coming from a member of a party that was known throughout the 1980s and early 1990s as the greenfield and out-of-town developers' friend. Its record in government was deplorable. Fifty per cent. of all out-of-town development in the post-war period took place in just five years, between 1985 and 1990. The Conservative Government set no recycling target until 1995, and then it was a target of just 50 per cent. Our target is 60 per cent. Thousands of little greenfield boxes are spreading like a rash across the countryside, all at low housing densities and all dependent on the motor car. That was the Conservatives' legacy. We should not forget how much Lady Thatcher hated public transport and wanted to promote the great car economy.
As I have said, the Conservatives have a deplorable record. No one should attach any credibility to their current promises. By contrast, we have clear and credible policies to tackle constructively the real challenges posed by the respective claims of housing and the countryside. I can assure the House that, whatever housing figure we decide is appropriate—we have made no decisions as yet—we will require no more development of new greenfield sites than would have been envisaged under the original Serplan proposal. That is because we have put a clear emphasis on well-designed developments at higher densities, to ensure that we accommodate more people on any given amount of land.
That will not only reduce the profligate waste of greenfield land that is so characteristic of the executive-home developments so beloved by the last Government, but help to ensure the existence of better-designed environments providing for a wide range of needs, for single people as well as families and for those requiring rented accommodation as well as those requiring homes for sale. In that respect as in so many others, we are putting into effect recommendations in Lord Rogers's urban taskforce report. The Opposition may refer parrot-like to the Rogers report, but I suspect that they would not recognise, let alone approve of, any of my noble Friend's policy proposals even if he were to beat them over the head with a copy of his report.
Our approach is intensely practical. It was inspired by the vision of a better future for our cities and our countryside. Ours is an approach that does not neglect the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged. Ours is an approach that will leave Britain with a far better legacy than the one that we inherited from the last Government.
The Opposition's case is threadbare; their record is deplorable; and their motion should be dismissed with the contempt that it deserves.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister's mother recovers well, and that he and the rest of the family are aiding that recovery as we speak.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) did not allow me to intervene when he suggested that the Government had to tell the people—that the people needed answers to some of his questions. I was going to ask whether he could answer one of my questions, which has baffled the nearly 2 million people who live in Hampshire. They would be interested to know why the county was singled out for special treatment under 17 years of Tory rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "18."] No; the Tories came up with a policy that changed the plan slightly in their last year of government.
The Tories missed the point when it came to Hampshire. There was hardly a planning application refused by the county council or the district councils that the Government did not back on appeal. Tens of thousands of houses are built on greenfield sites; not a single brownfield site was developed with the Government's support during the time when they were in control.

Mr. White: The exception was when the site in question was in Nicholas Ridley's backyard.

Mr. Hancock: Obviously there were exceptions, but they were small exceptions, and there were not many of them. The price that we paid in Hampshire, as a community, was one that many generations will regret in years to come.
If we are honest, we must look back a bit further even than the Conservative misrule of the years between 1979 and 1997. Coming from Portsmouth as I do, I know at first hand why the situation there deteriorated—why the city chose to build outside. It built the largest council

estate in Europe outside the city boundaries; but that decision was made in the aftermath of war. Many of our great cities had to go through the same process, because the only option available to them was to build outside.
We built communities containing greenfield gaps. It became convenient for developers to look at those gaps—gaps between the large council estate outside the city, and the city. They felt that filling the gaps was a developer's dream. Successive Governments fell into the trap of allowing that development—that sprawl—to take place.
If we accept that it was inevitable that the inner-city industries would decline—I think that few would deny that—we must also accept that, in the 1960s and 1970s, we should have planned to ensure that the sites were reused. If that had happened, the rape of the green belt that took place during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s could have been stopped.
There are three more good reasons why we are in the mess we are in today. The three issues involved were the direct responsibility of the Conservative Administration who ruled the country in those years. First, there was the right to buy, and the selling of good council houses with no proper replacement policy. It was nonsensical to allow local authorities to dispose of property, believing that the solution would be provided by the powerful Housing Corporation and housing associations when those bodies would manifestly never be able to deliver what was required. They were not capable, financially or practically, of delivering what local authorities have been able to deliver. Opportunities have been lost, and some of the problems that we now face in inner cities result directly from that policy.
Secondly, there was the Conservative Government's failure to continue one of the success stories that they inherited from Labour when they came to power in 1979. The general improvement programme was built around the aim of rejuvenating properties, many nearly 100 years old, which would be guaranteed a 25-year life span. It brought life back to the cities. I remember campaigning in my ward to stop the bulldozers. The campaign was successful: 30 years on, people are still living in those houses and enjoying having a back garden and a front door with neighbours alongside them, in a friendly community. Those benefits have been denied to thousands of others whose houses were cleared under the slum clearance policy.
Sadly—and neglectfully, in my view—the Tory Government dropped that programme. They allowed the process of improvement to be retarded, and presided over the adoption of a!negative approach. Only developers with ready cash could obtain grants; young first-time buyers were dissuaded from taking on the challenge of improving older inner-city houses.
The third factor—which caused most of our problems in inner cities such as the one in which I live—was the fact that the Government, for all the right educational reasons, allowed polytechnics and further education colleges to become universities, and allowed them to encourage a massive increase in the number of students without providing the resources that were necessary for students to be housed. Consequently, there was another bonanza for landlords in inner-city areas. They could now consider a flat-fronted, three-bedroomed terrace property in the centre of Portsmouth. Following the relaxation of the rule that no more than three unrelated adults should


live in one property—"three" became "six"—in cities throughout the country, six students per house are paying £50 a week for a room. The owner of the property would be buying a five-bedroomed house on a greenfield site, while still making a handsome £1,200 a month and being able to pay two mortgages.
In different ways, the Tories encouraged the development of those three problems, and the Government failed to recognise the enormous damage that they were doing. Between 1979 and 1997, local authorities sold nearly 2 million properties. In how many cases were the properties needed to meet the needs of local communities in inner cities, built by those capable of building them?
Local authorities were the one agency that was denied the opportunity. They were not allowed even to repair their housing stock properly. The country now faces nearly £17 billion-worth of repairs just to bring up to standard housing that is still owned by local authorities, while billions of capital receipts were left in the bank and we were not able to use them.
What did Serplan try to do? The Minister slightly hedged his bets when he suggested that the Government had looked at the figures carefully. I think that most people would say that they looked at the original figures, looked at the Crow report and split the difference. Within a very few points, the figure is the mean difference between the two figures. It is not wrong for people to look rather cynically at that issue.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise a point of order, but I have just been in the Lobby and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has been using a mobile phone there. I wonder whether there is a view on whether mobile phones should be used in our Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that a ruling has been given on that recently. It is certainly nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair in the course of a debate. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take the matter further, I suggest that he does so in a letter to the Speaker, but I think that there has been a recent relaxation of the rules.

Mr. Hancock: Serplan was bitter in a way because it felt that its view, the local view, had not been taken seriously. The only action that it could take to resist what was going on was to express a view that the figures were flawed and that it would come up with a figure that justifiably could be satisfied within the communities that it represented.
I am a former member of Serplan. I know from long back that its chairmanship and membership have always been taken seriously. Serplan has always performed credibly, no matter who was running it. It was looked at as one of the prime movers in getting planning right, but Serplan can succeed only if the Government listen to it with an open mind and give it the opportunity to put its message across in such a way that it can be respected, with its view talked through purposefully. Sadly, that dimension is gone. It needs to be rebuilt.
Serplan is about local accountability. It is about local people getting elected and representing local views. Is the Minister serious in what he is presenting to the House in

the Green Paper? The Government themselves talk about the need to ensure that local people make those decisions. There can be few bigger decisions that local communities make than the number of people they want to live around them. We must look at whether the figures stack up.
As I said in my intervention on the Minister, when he was courteous enough to allow me in, it is no good arguing a good case for the use of brownfield sites in inner-city areas if, at the same time, the nation as a whole has nearly 750,000 empty houses. Sadly, I did not read much in the Green Paper to lead me with a lot of enthusiasm to believe that that situation was going to be easily accommodated. It is not.
The figures do not apply to just one place. There are nearly as many empty houses in the south-east as there are in the west midlands or in the north-west. There are even more of them in London. One wonders why house prices are so high in areas with so many empty houses, yet it appears that house prices continue to escalate.
In the south-east alone, there are 94,000 empty properties. That in itself is a national disgrace. We should not allow a single greenfield site to be developed until a proper battle plan is drawn up that addresses that issue. It cannot be right. Most reasonable people whom we represent, of whatever persuasion, cannot be convinced that there is a way forward when we fail to address that issue.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those houses are empty because they are in transit between either being sold or bought, or because they are being re-let?

Mr. Hancock: I do not accept that because I know that the figures stay remarkably static; the figures for property that has been empty for more than six months or for more than a year remain remarkably static. Local authorities have thousands of empty properties. The national figure for local authority houses is enormous—82,000 in total.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the south-east of England and in many other parts of the country, a substantial problem relates to the speed at which houses physically can be passed on when being sold in the private sector? That to some extent relates to the transactions on house sale and purchase, but it also relates to the rate at which probate goes through. Does he accept that that should be looked into?

Mr. Hancock: Of course, that is a sensible suggestion. I agree entirely that there are problems associated with the way in which property is passed on, but, when we analyse that, we find that it affects a small percentage. The percentage of properties empty for more than a year far exceeds that. I do not believe that legal procedures are holding up all that. When I have examined such matters in my city, that has not been borne out.

Mr. Phil Hope: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the ratio of housing in this country to, say, housing in Romania is about 2:1; I understand that that is currently the position.

Mr. Hancock: I do not think that that will help the debate too much, but it is probably an interesting


conversation piece that the hon. Gentleman uses from time to time. However, I do not believe that it will develop his argument much here, or support the Minister' s.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes some serious points about vacant accommodation, but is he suggesting that it is his party's policy that houses in private ownership should be subject to compulsory purchase order powers to introduce them into the housing market? That is the implication of what he is saying.

Mr. Hancock: I think that there are lots of ways in which we can help the situation. There is a problem. I listened with great interest the previous time that we debated the matter, just before the Green Paper was published. The Minister said with great anticipation that there was something coming. Now that it has arrived, I do not believe that it was worth the wait. A lot still needs to be done. I am sorry if the Minister feels unhappy with that statement, but I was hoping for more positive help to get empty property back into use.
I have just been told that England are now 2–1 up, which is pleasant news. I missed the other point because I thought that it was 1–1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I might express the view of the whole House if I say that the hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the debate that is taking place, in which many other Members wish to participate.

Mr. Hancock: I understand that. I know that feeling of waiting only too well.
The Liberal Democrats have tried to persuade the Government to see the error of their ways. My colleagues tried to persuade the Tories, but could not win that argument during their time in power. Like all Members, we want proper respect for the environment and a balance to be found between urban development and protection of the green belt. That goes without saying.
We believe that we must restrict the sprawl and come up with measures that can address that. Liberal Democrats have said time and again, inside and outside the House, that we want a firming-up of the guidance about cleaning up contaminated land. It cannot go on being said that we can develop brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites if there is no one around to pick up the tab for cleaning up the sites. Too many inner-city sites are badly contaminated. It can be done only if the Government are prepared to intervene and to help with that process.
We need greenfield taxes on developers' excess profits. Such taxes need to deliver an alternative. We also need to find a proper way in which to get older properties back into use. That can be done simply by levelling off value added tax. In one stroke, we would gain an enormous benefit if we reduced VAT on improvements to around 7 to 8 per cent. That would be reasonable.
Although we could all talk about past experiences, as I said, in the south-east, we have had some pretty bitter ones. The Government's proposals will not solve the problem, and Liberal Democrat Members do not believe that they will even start to meet the real need. If we are

to get away from past practice, we shall have to have some radical re-thinking. We need some positive thought about how local authorities can really play a part—not only in the planning process, but, once again, in delivering housing that people want.
If we really do want to use inner-city areas, we shall have to ensure that matching resources are provided to boost education and health provision in them. If we do not do that, the Secretary of State, in exercising his responsibility for planning applications, will have a very difficult job in refusing developers' proposals for greenfield development. Increasing demand will not be restrained if that provision is not made. We need positive thinking, which has been lacking. We also need real leadership.
I hope that some good will come from the Green Paper. I also hope that the Minister is listening very closely not only to hon. Members, but, especially on this issue, to those who have a vested interest in the subject—local authorities and local people.

Mr. Paul Clark: I am glad to be able to contribute to a debate that is important not only for people in the south-east, but for people across the country. The debate is not only about numbers; it is about people's lives. Despite the claims made by some Opposition Members, the debate is also about our children's future—their ability to live and to work where they wish.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned the need for real leadership. I have no doubt that, if the Government had not shown real leadership and looked to the future, they would have been accused of irresponsibility and of abrogating their responsibility to the House and to the people of the United Kingdom. It is only right that every Government should plan for the future, to determine how people are living their lives, where they want to live and how developments should proceed.
The previous Tory Government attempted such planning when they were in office. I was a local councillor in the then borough of Gillingham at that time, when we had to live with the Tory construction plan. As I do not want to be accused of putting words into anyone's mouth, or of attempting to mislead anyone, I shall quote from that plan, which was adopted in late 1996, early 1997. It stated:
Current regional guidance … sets a regional housing provision—
for the south-east—
of 57,000 dwellings per annum—
until 2011. It went on to say that Kent's share of that regional housing provision would be 5,800 dwellings per annum.
The plan justified the 57,000 figure for various reasons, such as
projected future average rates of net migration—
which is population movement into the county of Kent, and
the changing relationship between population and households.


The plan rightly stated that the average household size in Kent was decreasing from 2.85 in 1971 to a projected 2.26 in 2011. It went on to cite as reasons for declining household size factors such as
smaller family size, earlier household formation (young people leaving home and forming separate households sooner), increasing longevity and high divorce/separation rates.
If I recall correctly, those were the precise arguments that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister advanced in his statement to the House on 7 March, when he was introducing new planning policy guidance 3. He said:
I emphasise that 70 per cent. of new households over the next 20 years will be single person households.
Some will be youngsters setting up home. Some will be people living independently of their families. Some will be elderly people living longer … Many will need well designed, well located homes for rent or to buy that are affordable and that give them a range of choice and a better quality of life. We must therefore plan for those changes.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]
Those were the same reasons that were given in 1996. They are the same reasons that we must consider today when considering how to plan for the future of our counties and regions.
When I was a local councillor, I argued against developments in Gillingham's own backyard and in other parts of Kent. I recognise, as I am sure that every other hon. Member does, the feelings of weakness and powerlessness that one feels when confronted with speculative planning applications that are ultimately approved despite the desires and wishes of democratically elected local authorities. I saw plots of land behind housing developments disappear because another 15 homes could be squeezed into them.
I genuinely believe that the new planning guidance has gone a long way in helping to strengthen the position of locally elected councillors who, at the sharp end of the issue, are trying to put into practice the policies necessary to meet the requirements and desires of local communities. The strength of that policy lies in the sequential approach that is at the heart of PPG3—the presumption in favour of using recycled land and buildings before greenfield sites. The sequential approach entails consideration first of urban brownfield sites, then of urban extensions, and then of new settlements in good transport corridors. Additionally, local authorities are now able to review land allocations, to ensure that they measure up to the new PPG3 approach.
The south-east is certainly not uniform, but—from Guildford to Gillingham, and from Sheppey to Southampton—contains blatant differences and variations. According to all the deprivation statistics, north Kent, where my constituency is located, has a number of the top 10 per cent. most deprived wards and a per capita gross domestic product that is 7 per cent. below the Kent average—which itself is lower than the United Kingdom average.
Against that economic background, there is a clear need to meet the requirements of those who are already living in Kent. We must, of course, also promote inward investment, to create more jobs and prosperity for those who are already living in Kent.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was in government, recognised the need to build homes and to create communities, including jobs and

social infrastructure. He recognised that the east London corridor, which is now called the Thames gateway, provided a prime example of a place where the type of policies being pursued by the current Government could deliver homes, thereby easing pressure on other areas. Every planning document on Kent—including the Tories' Kent structure plan and all the documents published by the current and the previous Government—has recognised that opportunity. Serplan has long recognised that potential. That sequential approach means that the brownfield sites that are in abundance in the area of the south-east to which I refer can be used to ease pressures elsewhere, while at the same time meeting the Government's guidance of 60 per cent. or more. We can bring in sites that are totally derelict, with a history of industrial use but now of no use to anyone. That can be done through concerted effort.
Local decision making is the key—I am sure that no one would disagree with that—but it has to be done within a strategic framework. Back in 1995–96, the Tory Government imposed an increase of 2,500 in the number of dwellings required by Kent, despite opposition from elected local representatives. The strategic guidelines have to be put into place at a local level, and that is what happening today with the backing of the planning framework that has been introduced.
We are deciding the strategic sites locally. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned some of the hurdles to creating those sites. There is further to go to overcome those hurdles, but we are prioritising them locally and planning the resources required. The issue is land for building communities, to provide homes, jobs and the social infrastructure required. Classic examples exist where such work has already happened.
I have already noticed that house prices are increasing in north Kent as the infrastructure is put in place. I have no doubt that, if we continue to provide the jobs and redevelopment required, but without the housing, we will end up short of homes for key workers and others. The policies outlined by the Opposition would be a complete disaster for economic regeneration in north Kent.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Nearly a year ago, I instigated the first debate on the Rogers report, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", and it appears that, whenever I speak, the Minister is wisely in his place to ensure that everything that I say accords with his views. In that debate, I congratulated Lord Rogers and the urban taskforce on their report, not least because it came to many similar conclusions to those that I had reached 17 years earlier in my book, "New Life for Old Cities". However, the Rogers report clearly showed the immense task facing this country. It was committed to reverse urban decline and decay, to make cities vibrant and alive and to attract young people to the inner cities.
During that debate, I made a prediction. I said that the Rogers report is a wish list of things that cannot be achieved without the political will. We will need to find a political will that must go beyond one Minister and one Department, however good their work may be. This country has produced fine reports over the years, but sadly little has changed. I had hoped that the challenging report by Lord Rogers would usher in a new era of urban regeneration, but I feared that it would not. To date,


although the Government have an interesting list of initiatives that they have taken—I thank the Minister for replying to my written question on 16 May—that is only a start and there is a long way to go.
When I came seventh in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I concluded that the most useful thing that I could do to accelerate and expedite the recommendations in the Rogers report was to introduce the Urban Regeneration and Countryside Protection Bill, which had simple aims and would have been of benefit to Lord Rogers and his recommendations. Those simple aims were to identify brownfield land, place a statutory duty on Government, local and national, to utilise that land, and to ensure that any housing development did not place an undue strain on existing local infrastructure. The term infrastructure I defined as including health, education and recreational facilities, as well as transport and sewage.
On Second Reading, on 24 March, the Government welcomed my Bill but said that they could not support it for two reasons. They claimed that it was too broad in focus, with aims that were too general, and that many of the clauses had been covered by points in the PPG3 guidance to local authorities. However, that was before the Government came up against something of a brick wall with Serplan. Lord Hanningfield, the chairman of Serplan and the leader of Essex county council, stated that the scale of development proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister would place an intolerable strain on the region's infrastructure. The Government do not appear to have paid much attention to that, but they should reflect on what has been said. If, say, transportation links were to become overloaded in the south-east, what would happen in other areas?
When we talk about planning, we always concentrate on the south-east, but there are other areas. What will happen in the south-west, where 395,000 new homes have to be built by 2011? The south-east, as we all know, has the best transport links in the country. If they will be at breaking point under the strain of the new proposed housing numbers, what will happen in the south-west? It will inevitably face gridlock.
The Government's numbers will be challenged all over the country by regional planning bodies unless they specify how the proposed scale of new development will be sustainable. Serplan's comments reflect a wider problem with the entire planning and urban regeneration process. Everything revolves around numbers. The Conservative Government whom I supported said that 4.4 million new homes were required. This Government have reduced that to 3.8 million. The prevailing view is that it does not matter whether it is 4.4 million or 3.8 million, because the houses will not be built by 2011.
The Government have changed the slogan. "Predict and provide" is now to be considered evil, and the replacement is "plan, monitor and manage". Nobody knows what difference there is between the two. It is just a lovely spin—plan, monitor and manage—a sort of slogan that one whispers to one's planning officer and he says, "Oh, yes, of course that will be all right," whereas the old predict and provide was obviously wrong and flawed. It is just part of the new Labour spin. It is attractive, but we should know what it means, and it means very little.
The entire process still centres around the allocation of numbers, and not the infrastructure provision. That is why my Bill was rather important and still is. The Urban Regeneration and Countryside Protection Bill, which the Government allowed a full day's debate on 24 March and which is still in the list, would ensure, if they adopted it, that infrastructure was the key factor in deciding whether housing allocation could be achieved. It would ensure a bottom-up approach, with local councils deciding not only where the numbers should go, but what the numbers should be, based on the ability of the local infrastructure to sustain development.
Even if the Government had not made the wrong decision in talking my Bill out, they have made another mistake. I have raised it already, and I shall stress it, because it is so crucial. They have run into difficulty with the European Union over urban regeneration. That matter should be addressed in the winding-up speech.
Local Government First, which I dealt with in my intervention, reported that the EU Commission had ordered the Government to stop giving grants to assist companies in clearing up contaminated brownfield land earmarked for redevelopment. The Government failed to mention that when the issue was debated in Westminster Hall on 13 June. Did the Minister make no mention of such a problem because it is new, or was it in existence on 13 June? If it is a problem, and the Government cannot overcome it, their aim of having 60 per cent. brownfield redevelopment by 2008 will be completely in disarray. Contaminated land often lies in the heart of our cities, in the old industrial urban areas, the very areas that need to be revived if we are to witness an urban renaissance.
I am a little puzzled as to why Europe has got into this, because I have the good fortune to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. This year alone, we have passed directives allowing the French and German Governments to subsidise their coal and steel industries. I cannot understand how the Commission allows the payment of vast subsidies to those industries in those countries, yet rules that it is illegal for our Government to make a modest contribution to help regenerate rundown, contaminated land. Perhaps the Government could say a little more about what they hope to achieve. It has been somewhat glossed over in this debate, but it is a crucial issue, because it will put a coach and horses through the Government's policy.
At the beginning of my speech, I referred back to my speech of a year ago. Those hon. Members who were present may remember that it was a bit of a tour de force. I stated that the political will for urban regeneration must go beyond one Minister and one Department. The Chancellor has not got the message yet. Perhaps the Minister could say something to him. If he cared for urban regeneration, he would not allow VAT, which he fails to impose on new build, to be added to renovation material used to renew the urban decline of houses, flats and warehouses in the inner city. It cannot make sense to talk about urban regeneration but leave out the sticks and the carrots. At present, the sticks and the carrots are in the wrong place. One gets a stick if one renovates in the inner city; one gets a carrot if one builds on greenfield sites. That cannot be right.
Given the Government's inertia on urban regeneration and other problems, I earnestly suggest that the Minister look at my Bill again. If he did, it might give his entire


programme of urban regeneration a kick start. This country would be far better if my Bill had become an Act of Parliament by the time we rose this summer.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I do not remember hearing the previous tour de force of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). After his contribution this evening, I must say with all due respect that I am extremely grateful that the Government will be concentrating on meeting future housing need through their Bill and not through the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
This has become an extremely interesting debate, now that the baying brigade of the Opposition have left. It should be noted that the issue is of such importance to the Opposition that there are precisely three of their Back-Benchers sitting in the Chamber. The serious contributions to the debate have come from my hon. Friend the Minister, my other hon. Friends who have spoken and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
I represent an inner-London constituency. After I was returned to the House in 1992, I was shocked by an explosion of homelessness in this capital city during the previous Government's maladministration of housing. People in every metropolitan area had nowhere to sleep other than pavements. Thousands of homes were repossessed because of the inequity of the previous Government's economic policies. There was not one iota of commitment to acknowledging that housing is a national resource.
The previous Administration argued for leaving the matter to the vagaries of the market—"You cannot buck the market"—I believe was one of the phrases used. We were in the centre of a great car economy, we were told. When the Labour Government came to office, they were confronted with a shambles. Huge and diverse problems surrounded the maintenance of the housing stock in the south-east and throughout the United Kingdom.
This debate concentrates on the Government's proposals for the south-east. The Green Paper makes a great step forward by acknowledging that housing is a national resource that must be maintained and developed nationally. However, this is a small island, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. We cannot expand our physical borders so we must therefore maintain our green belt. If we are serious about urban regeneration, and I believe that we are, we must ensure that public spaces in cities such as London are maintained.
We must create greater densities, but that will inevitably require infinitely better insulation and sound proofing in the buildings that are put up. There must also be close integration with transport bodies to encourage the sort of social infrastructures that can make cities vibrant, thrilling and exciting places to live.
Our inner cities decayed under the previous Administration. Crime took over deserted city centres, all sense of community disappeared and social structures broke down. I was amazed to hear Conservative Members argue against planning proposals in their constituencies. They must know that permissions for those proposals were granted by the previous Administration. For example, major developments were proposed in my constituency. My local authority, my constituents and I argued against them ferociously, on the ground that they

would bring no benefit to communities in the area, but they were rubber stamped by the then Secretary of State for the Environment. They went ahead with no regard for the genuine needs of people living in an inner-London borough.
The present Government have made a major step change in their approach to this country's future housing needs, especially in the south-east. My one criticism of the proposals is that they do not emphasise that single-occupancy dwellings should not be single-bedroom dwellings. We should not consider building any property that does not have two bedrooms at least. Our population is ageing, and we know that most elderly people prefer to live out their lives in their own homes. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that, as people become frail, they may require the attentions of carers or other family members, because they will not want to go into a hospital or nursing home.
We must begin to look at the immediate housing needs in the south-east and throughout the country, but we must also look to the long term, so that we can have a truly flexible housing stock. Houses must be able to meet the needs of individuals and young couples on the one hand, and on the other, the needs of elderly couples or individuals who require care.
I strongly endorse the Government's proposals. For a glowing example of what can be achieved by building on brownfield sites, one need look no further than the Greenwich peninsula. I want not to discuss the millennium dome, but to concentrate on those aspects of development on the peninsula that demonstrate what can be achieved through the Government's approach.

Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and allowing me to give another example of the benefits of the Government's approach. A major development in Paddington will involve 1,000 homes and 30,000 jobs. It is an excellent example of inner-city regeneration and has been backed by £13.5 million of Government money under the single regeneration budget. It has also been designated an education action zone. That shows that the Government are able and willing to bring together all the components needed to make inner-city regeneration work. However, it is one of the last brownfield sites available in central London. Conservative Members are saying that they do not care about the housing need in the city that is not met because they are closing all other options.

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What has become abundantly clear from the lamentable contributions of Conservative Members is that they have no care for the provision of housing in urban areas and no concern for the provision of housing in rural areas. It is this Government who have increased the green belt in three short years. In the 18 seemingly unending years of the previous Administration, we saw depredation after depredation when it came to the green belt.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the hon. Lady accept that there is no point in increasing the total square mileage of green belt for as long as the green belt itself is eroded and moves outwards from the cities? The kind of regeneration in the city centres that the hon. Lady and I would both like to see


simply will not happen if the Government continue to allow the green belt to be eroded at the fringe where it meets the city boundaries.

Ms Jackson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that the Government have no intention of allowing an erosion of the green belt. If he is thinking about what happened under the previous Administration, that happened because they failed significantly to make our cities desirable places in which to live. They did nothing about affordable housing—people fled to rural areas to find somewhere decent to live. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) seemed to blame people who had been driven out of city centres into rural areas for taking away the opportunity for the sons and daughters of the people already living in rural areas to find affordable properties in which to live. That is an interesting volte face from the party which claims to speak exclusively for rural communities.
As I was saying, the reclamation of the Greenwich peninsula which was, I would argue, one of the most polluted sites in Europe, is proof of what can be achieved. The millennium village is a benchmark of what can be achieved, and what, under this Government, will be achieved. Its properties are being built and will be maintained, using the most environmentally friendly techniques. One would never know, from standing outside a property, whether someone had bought it or rented it. The village contains facilities such as schools and a park; the environment is not only pleasant to live in but will attract people into the area; and thousands of jobs have been created.
It is, surely, a basic human right to have our own space in which to live and a door that can be closed to ensure our privacy and, equally, that we keep outside that part of the world which, at a particular moment, we do not wish to see.
The previous Administration failed lamentably to tackle housing issues. This Government have produced a Green Paper that can lead to the results that people want. It is a scandal and a disgrace that there are still people in this country who have nowhere to live but a pavement or a shop doorway. This Government will bring about the changes that the country needs for the future. The contribution of Conservative Members this evening has been lamentable, matched only by their practices in this area when they were a lamentable Government.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). May I remind her that last Friday, Shelter was talking about an increase of 45 per cent. in the number of registered homeless since the Government came into office?
I would not have sought to contribute to the debate except for the simple fact that when I wanted to bring a deputation of representatives of local authorities in the Cambridge sub-region to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), her

response was to decline to receive such a deputation. She said that she considered that to receive such a deputation
would not add to our understanding.
That will not be well understood by people who live in the Cambridge sub-region, perhaps not even by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).
The Under-Secretary and other Ministers at the Department need to understand that this would not set a precedent for other areas. Cambridge and the area around it have some special factors that have been expressly dealt with in regional planning guidance. The Minister knows that I have taken an exceptionally close interest in this matter, including attending both of the days during which this was the subject of an examination in public before the panel. He will know also that the response from the Government to the panel's report and the representations from the standing committee of East Anglia local authorities departed substantially from the panel's recommendations in relation to the Cambridge sub-region, and that the recommendations that Ministers have issued by way of draft regional planning guidance impact probably to a much greater extent in determining the shape of the structure plan in Cambridgeshire than would be the case in almost any other county in the south-east regional planning committee's or SCEALA's region.
The housing projections for Cambridgeshire that were published by the Department last year for 2000–21 showed an increase of 33.8 per cent. over the period from 1996 to 2021. That is a higher increase than in any other county. We recognise in the Cambridge sub-region that we are wrestling with virtually unprecedented levels of development pressure, both economic and housing. The two sectors are intimately related. The Minister will know—I would have hoped that his ministerial colleague would have been prepared to discuss matters with local representatives before finalising regional planning guidance—that there are still substantial reservations about the proposals in the draft RPG.
I will put the reservations simply in four terms. First, SCEALA and the local authorities in East Anglia have put forward a set of proposals that the Government have largely accepted in contradiction to Serplan. They have largely accepted SCEALA's forecasts, but not in relation to the Cambridge sub-region. Working exhaustively on the basis of environmental sustainability and capacity, local authorities saw 4,000 homes per year as a maximum figure. The Government, however, are considering 4,000 as a minimum, and in five or 10 years hence it is conceivable that that figure will be substantially exceeded.
Secondly, there are considerable reservations about the balance, even within Cambridgeshire, that the Government are seeking. They are proposing that 70 per cent. of new houses will be within the Cambridge sub-region in due course. At the present level of building, 2,000 homes a year are being constructed in the area. The implication of the Government's proposals are that more than 2,800 homes a year can be built in the sub-region.
There is no question of people in Cambridge or the surrounding districts saying that they are simply full, putting up the shutters and resisting economic development where it is desirable. However, there is a limit. The necessity of striking a balance between the quantum of economic development and environmental sustainability in the Cambridge region demands a different balance from the one towards which the


Government seem to be heading. To increase by 40 per cent. or more the rate of housebuilding in the Cambridge sub-region will be regarded as complete folly. Indeed, it will be regarded as impracticable when we consider the speed at which planning permissions are generated and processed and building is able to take place in the region. Against that background, an increase of 40 per cent. would be almost impossible.
The third serious reservation is that the RPG makes references in explanatory text to the infrastructure consequences of economic and housing development on the proposed scale. However, it does not tie Government policy commitments to the achievement of specific housing target figures. Residents of the Cambridge sub-region will wonder what sort of Government could, in the middle of 1998, take the A 14 out of the roads programme—a road that is instrumental in the cluster development between Huntingdon and Cambridge, and all the cluster economic development in high-tech industries that the Government so much wish Cambridge to accommodate. They press upon Cambridge large additions to the housing stock, but at the same time remove from their investment programme the infrastructure development that is essential to achieve such large increases in housing stock.
The fourth serious reservation is that the Government talk about the importance of green field and green belt, and the protection that should be given to the green belt. The Minister said, "Brown field first, green field last." However, when we come to the sequence of the location of housing that the Government set out in the draft RPG, we see in the five-point sequence that No. 2 states that development should be on the periphery of the built-up area of Cambridge, subject to any review of the green belt. In the minds of the former Labour administration of the city council—the Liberal Democrats shared the same view—businesses should be pushed out, large areas of green belt taken over and substantial housing built on it.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: It was not only Labour and the Liberal Democrats that supported a review of the green belt. Cambridge Futures, South-Cambridgeshire Partnership, and almost everyone who has done any serious study of the matter supported it too. Is the hon. Gentleman not being totally irresponsible in imagining that the houses can be built without a review of the green belt in Cambridge?

Mr. Lansley: My point, which I should have thought that the hon. Lady would understand, was not that there should be no review of the green belt. Indeed, a review is integral to any structure plan review and any unitary development plan. That has happened before, and it would have happened again.
My point, and I hope that the hon. Lady may yet agree with it, is that when Ministers lay down the sequence of the location of development in the Cambridge sub-region, they should, if they are to be true to their word—brown field first, green field last—make the green belt the fifth item, not the second, on the list. It may be difficult for Ministers to reconcile that with their wish to put housing on the periphery of built-up areas, but the desire to do so on a large scale in Cambridge must be secondary to protecting the setting of Cambridge, which was the original intention of green belt policy.
I am seriously worried. Ministers seem to be contradicting their own policy of protection for the green belt. They also contradict their policy of seeking to

support economic development in the Cambridge sub-region by not committing themselves to the investment in the infrastructure and the support for public services necessary to deliver that development. They also contradict their policy by directing a large proportion of total housing in Cambridgeshire towards the part of the region in which the least amount of brownfield land is available for development.
The confusion surrounding the Government's policy would be somewhat clarified if, when discussing policy for the Cambridge sub-region, they had the simple good grace to meet us to talk about it.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am delighted to speak in the debate. In a previous incarnation, I was a director of a housing association and chairman of the local housing committee. I have a great interest in housing issues.
There has been much mention from Conservative Members about the whole south-east being covered in concrete. I recall a debate a year or so ago on the minimum wage in which they claimed that there would be mass unemployment as a result of it. Mass unemployment did not happen; nor will the concreting of the south-east.
The south-east has an acute shortage of housing, which the Government are sensibly trying to address. It is not an easy problem to solve. Land is in short supply and is expensive. Available land must be used to create the maximum number of high-quality homes. That means higher densities than in previous years, and we must maximise use of brownfield sites. Both those ideas are at the heart of what the Government are trying to do—and achieving.
In my constituency, 1,750 people are on the waiting list—half of them single. We have £10 million in reserve receipts. Last year's capital programme amounted to £3.5 million, and there is a £6 million programme this year. That extra spending, although welcome, does not begin to address the housing shortage. St. Albans has among the highest house prices in the land—a typical two-up, two-down terrace costs £265,000. My daughter and her partner bought a very small flat a few months ago for £115,000. Nobody on the average wage can purchase anything in St. Albans. Professional people—nurses, doctors, police officers—are unable to afford anything. As the Member of Parliament—paid two and a half times the national average—I could not afford a modest three-bedroom semi.
All that demonstrates that my constituency has much greater housing need than almost anywhere else. Not only those on the waiting list, the homeless and single people, but a great swathe of professional people cannot afford to live in St. Albans.
We have a demonstrable housing need, reserve receipts and buoyant council house sales. Together with that, we have two brownfield sites in the city centre that will be the subject of planning applications within the next few months. My ambition for those sites is that we should include a large proportion of social housing and some key worker housing as well as some houses for sale. One site belongs to Railtrack, whose representatives I, and others, have met recently to further that ambition.
We have used up our allocation of grant; those brownfield sites have come along and they will be built on. We have the chance to construct a significant number of social housing units, a modest number of key worker units, but we have only a limited time in which to act.
Those schemes have all the elements that our Government are trying to achieve; they will provide brownfield, city-centre, high-density, high-standard, social housing and key worker housing. The achievement of our ambition for the sites requires funding either by grant or by allowing a receipts holiday on capital receipts. Such sites become available only infrequently. When they do so, the opportunity to build homes that are affordable to rent and to buy must be taken.
We hear little of practical use from the Conservatives about housing our people. Our Government are trying to solve a housing shortage that has been around for years; we are maximising the use of brownfield sites and using higher densities than has been the recent practice while ensuring that top-quality homes are built to house our people.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate; I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) for making such a brief speech, as that has given me the opportunity to speak.
The Minister's contribution at the beginning of the debate was rather disappointing—mainly because of what he did not say and because of the issues that he did not address. He talked about many aspirations without offering any concrete—if that is not an unfortunate, although unintended pun—examples of how and when they would be achieved.
The Minister referred to a 60 per cent. target for building on brownfield sites and said that it would take time. We hear that statement more and more often from the Government: everything that they need to do will take time. They have had three years, but they have still made no progress. It is somewhat frustrating when they plead for more time on every issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) told us how the Government's policy reinforces and encourages the continuing migration of people from the north to the south. We have heard about the Government's lax approach to the green belt.
I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in the Chamber, not least because I understand that she has just accepted a position in the old Labour administration of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) at the London mayoralty. She made an interesting, enjoyable and well-presented contribution to the debate, but she did not tackle the real nub of the greenbelt problem. If the green belt is constantly redefined—if its perimeter cannot be relied on—it does not matter how much Governments expand a total area of green belt from time to time; the green belt's effect as a brake on urban sprawl and thus as a spur to development in cities will have been sacrificed. As that is occurring under this Government, it was hardly surprising that the Minister failed to talk about the decline of cities, nor that he did not really address the problems in our urban areas.
Perhaps one reason why the Minister did not deal with the matter is that he is all too aware that the Labour Government are spending less than the previous Conservative Government on regeneration in our cities.

Ms Buck: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the housing investment figures for areas such as my constituency? Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster are both inner-city authorities. In Kensington and Chelsea in 1995, the housing investment grant fell by 21 per cent. In 1995–96, it fell by 3 per cent. During the past year, it increased by 35 per cent. In Westminster, it fell by 25 per cent. in 1995, but this year it has increased by 64 per cent.

Mr. Brady: The Labour party is increasingly worried—rightly so—about what it likes to regard as its heartlands, so it should be concerned not about the figures read out by the hon. Lady but about the 20 per cent. cut in the Housing Corporation grant in the north-west, which is causing real pain and concern in areas where Labour is most vulnerable.
My figures on expenditure in rural areas are from a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report for the year 2000—which shows that in their first four years, the present Administration will spend £400 million less on urban regeneration than the previous Government in their final four years. The Government have little to say about regeneration in terms of planning policies—having allowed the green belt to be eroded—or expenditure.
I do not pretend that the previous Government had all the answers but the present Administration are falling into precisely the same trap of concentrating on major capital investment projects. The Lowry centre in Salford is a tremendous inner-city development and the Minister for Housing and Planning has the dome in his constituency. He likes to brush over it but he might think some of the developments surrounding the dome will be helpful. Under the previous Government, Salford quays in Manchester was redeveloped and the metrolink was introduced—both fantastic and successful projects.
Key to bringing life to inner cities, however, is not major capital projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the core importance of bringing families back to inner cities. Some parts of our cities have no difficulty attracting young, single households. Manchester city centre's first £1 million apartment was sold recently and there is one on the market now for £2 million. But all too often, young families feel compelled to move out of city centres because they are worried about crime and standards of educational provision.
The Government's response to crime has been to cut the number of police officers across the country. Manchester has 150 fewer police officers than when the Government took office—when in the past year alone, recorded crime in Greater Manchester increased by 10,000 incidents. At a time when crime is rising, police resources are falling—a vicious circle that counteracts positive steps to bring more life to city centres.
I give the Government credit for sensible policies at the margins of educational provision. When we debate the Learning and Skills Bill, we will have the opportunity to consider the proposal for city academies—state-funded, privately owned, partially selective schools that the


Government believe will begin to raise standards. Why will that policy be applied only where a school has failed and closed, when that option should be proactively pursued, to help raise standards in inner cities? Ministers think that 10 per cent. selection in city academies will raise standards but cling to the belief that anything above that figure—certainly 100 per cent. selection in grammar schools—will reduce standards.
There is no coherence to Government policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) so ably put it, predict and provide has given way to a new slogan but the practice is too similar to before. There is no radical attempt to tackle the real problems and difficulties faced by cities, acknowledge the importance of the green belt or address planning issues that exacerbate a concentration of development in the south instead of areas that need it more. The Government ask for more time but on the basis of their performance to date, there is no reason for allowing them to have it.

Mr. Brian White: I do not have much time, so I shall be brief. However, if this were such an important debate for the Conservative party, why did so few Tory Back Benchers from the south-east speak? In fact, none of them did.
One of the policies put forward by Conservative Members tonight suggests that the concept of developer roulette will continue. It is the system whereby developers put in planning application after planning application after planning application and they need to be successful only once. However, a community must win every time to protect itself. Their policy does nothing to address that. It is a lose-lose situation for communities.
It is interesting to note that all the Tory shires complain loudly, but my hon. Friend the Minister might be interested to know that, behind closed doors, the same Tory shires that shout the loudest are doing secret deals to protect their area from development and to move it into neighbouring areas. That continues the pattern of how several Tory shires have operated for some years.
The way in which the concept of the green belt has been mixed with that of green fields continues the way in which the Tories have tackled the debate over the past two or three years. They have not gone beyond the issue of what is green belt and what is green field. In addition, they never achieved the target that they set in government.
One of the things that worries me about the vote by Serplan is that a deliberate plan for less than one home per household means deliberately planning for homelessness and overcrowding, with all the social consequences that they bring. It means to plan deliberately for a shortage of labour in areas of economic growth and it means a reduction in housing choice. That is the message that has come from the Tories tonight.
I was going to discuss the regional planning guidance and consider what the Tories have done. On every issue—whether it is the sequential approach, the land take or urban capacity—they have not yet gone behind the issue of sloganising. Nothing demonstrated that more than the speech of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman).
One key point that must be borne in mind is that we must protect the green lungs of cities. We must ensure that there are trees and that playing fields are not lost as a result of the increased use of land on brownfield sites.
Major development in the south-east is possible only in a few areas. Unfortunately, one of them is around the brickfields between Aylesbury and Bedford. I recognise that market forces will put pressure on Milton Keynes to have major development. The Government have taken the right approach in recognising that and in planning for the future. To take the Tory approach is to take the ostrich approach and just to hope that such development will not happen. If we did that, we would face the problems again.
Tonight in Milton Keynes, 800 families are in temporary accommodation, and that does not count the people who cannot get on to the list. Tory policies would do nothing to address the needs of those families.
One way in which the problems can be dealt with is through the role that English Partnerships and other Government agencies can play. They have started well, but there is much more that they can do. The Tories suggest that, because new jobs create pressure for growth, we should take the high unemployment and stagnation route. That is the approach that the Tories took in the early 1980s when we had high unemployment and areas were left to rot. We know the consequences of that.
I conclude with a plea to the Government. The regional planning guidance is a good start for the south-east. It lays the foundations for sustainable development, but I hope that the Government recognise that many more things need to be done. The tough choices that the housing Green Paper highlighted are ones that we need to tackle. Issues such as housing benefit need to be sorted out if we are to get more people out of poverty. The Government must be prepared to intervene more and to set more rules for house building. I welcome what the Government are doing and I hope that they take the tough choices that the housing Green Paper identified.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been an interesting debate, but perhaps not as interesting to some hon. Members as the noises off of a particular football match. The last I heard was that it was not going too well from our point of view. The opening speech of the Minister for Housing and Planning was obviously affected by that event; he certainly referred to it. His combination of clumsy abuse and chanting his usual mantras from the terraces, as it were, seemed entirely in keeping with the match that has been going on at the same time as this debate.
As usual, the Minister started off with a bit of clumsy abuse about my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), before making a complaint about the number of debates that we are having on the subject and quoting in extenso from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The Minister's speeches follow a predictable pattern, and today's was no exception.
The real issue is whether there is any truth at all in the Government's mantra that the old predict and provide policy is gone, only to be replaced by a new policy. I shall return to the Minister's speech, especially his discussion of the Serplan controversy. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, gave a rather long history lesson, but he shared our concerns about Serplan. As is usual and traditional for Liberal Democrats, he distributed his abuse equally between the Government and the official Opposition.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) spoke about the need for leadership and made a powerful case for changing the planning system. However, like most Labour speakers, he seemed allergic to speaking about anything in this context post-1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) brought his usual authority to the subject; spoke movingly about his private Member's Bill; and made an especially important point about the recent EU ruling, which I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with in her winding-up speech.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) complained about the previous Government. However, as a former Transport Minister, she must surely bear some of the blame for the current state of standstill Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked knowledgeably about pressures in his own region and his reservations about the way in which the whole planning process affects his area. He also talked about the lack of joined-up thinking which, on the one hand, encourages cluster developments in and around Cambridge but, on the other, cuts important road links from the roads programme.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) spoke graphically about the pressures on property prices and availability in his own constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) reminded us of the importance of protecting the green belt and pointed out that the present Government are spending less on urban regeneration than the previous Government. He also spoke about the need to encourage families back into the inner cities.
Finally, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made unfair criticisms of the Serplan process. I have visited his constituency, with his knowledge, and do not think that he should assume that all his constituents welcome with open arms any new development in his constituency, as he apparently does. There must be a limit, even for Milton Keynes, and some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have views that are different from his.
Since the election, Ministers, especially the Minister for Housing and Planning, have made a lot of noise about the alleged end of predict and provide. It turns out that that is just meaningless rhetoric. As we have heard, after carefully weighing all the evidence, Serplan came up with a figure. Professor Crow then came up with a much higher figure. Ministers have tried to present themselves as heroes by pulling out of the air a so-called compromise figure which, following further careful consideration, Serplan voted against before confirming its earlier figure. The result, as we have seen, is near hysteria from Ministers.
I do not want to intrude in the running battle between the Minister and some sections of the media. However, on any view, it would be fair to say that the Minister expressed his unhappiness with the result of the Serplan vote only the other day. He told us a great deal about Serplan and how the Government have allegedly improved the procedure for what he called more meaningful participation. However, all the Government have done is split the difference, in effect. There were one

or two tell-tale comments in the Minister's speech. For example, I have written down his remark that Serplan came to its decision for reasons best known to it. That suggests that he is preparing the ground for taking not a blind bit of notice of what Serplan thinks.
The Minister talked about Serplan's failure to reach a consensus. Although he will accept the vote, he will also take account of minority views. Perhaps he would prefer to make the vote the best of three. I assume that if the Conservative party had taken a similar attitude the day after the general election, he would have accepted that as well. Even though Serplan represents grass roots feeling and opinion across the region and even though there was a clear vote and a clear majority the other day, the truth is that, despite all the rhetoric, he clearly has no intention of considering himself bound in any way by Serplan's conclusions.
In a recent interview, the Minister said of our policies: Ordinary people would be priced out of the market …
Well, I have news for him. They are already being priced out of the market thanks to the Government's policies. Whatever happened to joined-up government? We do not hear much about that these days. Has he seen today's Financial Times report on Professor Huggins of the centre for advanced studies at Cardiff university, who has made a study of regional policy? For example, he has decided that training and enterprise councils in the north and the midlands "underperform the average". He says that
neither these nor the new regional development agencies will make much difference.
He also believes:
A clear pattern is emerging whereby current policy intervention rolled-out from London is undoubtedly having the effect of widening regional disparities.
Is that not the point of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said?
It is a year since the Rogers report was published, yet what progress has been made towards a so-called urban renaissance? On that as on almost every other aspect of the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ministers have been rolled over by the Treasury—on urban regeneration, on housing repairs and renovation, on the VAT regime for development and on new infrastructure for those areas where the Government want to impose all the new housing. What are they doing about streamlining the planning system so that it is quicker and cheaper and reflects more closely the views of local people? Conservative Members think that the whole planning system needs a thorough overhaul.
The Minister and Lord Falconer have one thing in common—their fondness for talking about ordinary people. However, we are not talking about Labour Members who are whisked from one luxury residence to another in the back of a chauffeur-driven Jag. We are talking about people who have worked hard all their lives and moved to an area whose natural beauty attracted them, or perhaps about those who were born in such an area and have lived there all their lives. No doubt Ministers would disparagingly refer to their concerns as nimbyism, but I prefer to regard them as positive parochialism. Those people are right to be worried because they know that, often, services in their locality are already stretched to breaking point and not getting better under the


Government. They know that schools, health services and transport infrastructure—let alone natural resources such as water—are under pressure.
Interestingly, when the Deputy Prime Minister was interviewed on "Breakfast with Frost" the other day, he said, "What they want is an intelligent discussion, but take the Tories: they have gone to their Tory friends in Serplan and said, 'Vote against this because we want to make it an election issue.' Well, if they want to say there should be more executive homes at the expense of perhaps decent houses"—[Interruption.] Ah, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has joined us. I recognise the timbre of her voice.
The Deputy Prime Minister concluded, "I am on the side of the many, not the few." The message for most people is, "The many not the few will be coming very soon to a greenfield site near you." I say to the Minister for Housing and Planning that he, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and the Deputy Prime Minister will not be at the controls when the bulldozers move in to concrete over the countryside, but they may as well be. I promise them that those who have to live with the consequences of the Government's broken promises and their own broken dreams will know whom to blame. They will exact their revenge on Labour Members and Labour councillors who have failed to stand up for their local communities. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have discussed important issues tonight. It is a shame that their seriousness has not been matched by Opposition Members' contributions. As we have heard, this is the sixth time that the Opposition have chosen this topic for debate. I do not mind that because it is important. However, the Opposition's response does not get better; they do not improve with practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) said, they have failed to produce a serious political response.
Opposition Members mistakenly perceive the debate as an opportunity for making cheap political gain. Tonight, as in the past, they have said nothing of substance about the way in which we should tackle some of the most difficult problems for people in our cities, towns and countryside. Some of Conservative Members' language has been contemptible. To speak about the rape of Stevenage and the rape of the green belt not only diminishes what rape means to victims, but is clearly designed to inflame and sensationalise the issue.
Let me take hon. Members back to first principles. Most people would agree with my hon. Friend the Minister's three fundamental propositions: everyone should have the chance of a decent home; our cities and towns should be renewed and revitalised; and our countryside should be protected. However, anyone who gives those propositions any thought can immediately appreciate that marrying those objectives creates dilemmas.
The dilemmas are different in different regions and types of area: urban and rural, inner city and country town. In some instances, the objectives are in conflict. For example, in the south-east, there is enormous pressure to

provide more housing for people and to protect the countryside. That dilemma cannot be resolved simply by ignoring one or other of the objectives, as Opposition Members suggest. It cannot be resolved by the Opposition's over-simplified, cynical response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) said, the problem is not simply one of numbers. To adopt the Opposition's suggestions would cause immense difficulty now and in the future for many ordinary people who would not be able to find housing near their families or near their work. That has implications for the region's economy.
Previous Labour Governments developed the planning system to enable the countryside to be protected and to get away from sprawl. That careful, planned approach should be contrasted with the effects of 18 years of Tory rule in the south-east and in our cities, where communities had no protection from the types of development that were promoted. The market ruled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) explained so clearly. Developers were led to believe that whatever they wanted would be granted. Poorly integrated road building and the break-up of public transport encouraged people to commute long distances by car. Out-of-town shopping—the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) knows all about that—was allowed to happen willy-nilly, and undermined existing town centres.
Conservative policies led to neglect of the cities and the drain of people away from inner cities. Opposition Members have clearly forgotten that virtually all the development on greenfield sites that is currently happening in the south-east was written into local plans and granted permission under the previous Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) highlighted the importance of housing density. Renewing our cities, providing homes in areas such as the south-east and protecting our countryside call for greater efficiency in the use of land. Local authorities are beginning to take notice, and developments that are in line with our policy are beginning to be made. Building in the south-east has been at one of the lowest densities in the country: 22 houses per hectare, compared with an English average of 27 houses per hectare. In our cities also, higher-quality design of higher-density mixed housing is the key to improving the quality of urban housing and bringing people back to our city centres.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells on his continued contention that there is a flight from the north to the south. Opposition Members continue to fuel the fear that the south-east is being flooded with people from the north. That is a myth. It is not true.
The hon. Gentleman placed great credence in The Sunday Telegraph when it misquoted my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know what The Sunday Telegraph says about that issue. The same article, referring to new housing in the south-east, states:
So are all the new closes and cul-de-sacs being filled with migrants from Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle? Not at all. The majority of new housing estates are being occupied by people who were already living in the region.
The article continues:
And what is driving the need for new houses is the growth in the number of single households, fuelled by climbing divorce rates and our ageing population.


Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take note of The Sunday Telegraph.
Migration is a two-way process. People are moving into and out of the north as well as the south. The limited evidence available suggests that the so-called north-south shift is probably more a matter of low net migration into the northern regions.
Housing density is a key element of our revised PPG3. That is in stark contrast to the contributions of the Opposition. Ours is a consistent package approach involving greater choice for households of different sizes, greater affordability—we did not hear much about that from the Opposition—and mixed developments. It also entails lower land take; less profligate use of land; a sequential approach so that brown fields are developed first and green fields last; delivery of a national 60 per cent. recycling target and higher quality of housing development.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady respond to a point that I made in the debate? If she is committed to brown field first and green field last, why in a five-point sequence for the Cambridge sub-region is green belt No. 2?

Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman well knows the reason. Much of the capacity in that area is on brownfield sites. That is the reason for the No. 2 priority.
The pressures in the south-east and in our towns and cities have not come about because of this Government. The pressures have accumulated largely because of the disastrous policies of the previous Government, who abandoned our cities, approved a dramatic rise in the number of out-of-town shopping centres, let the housing market do as it pleased and squandered greenfield land.
The Opposition now argue that local authorities should be able to veto all new housing development in their area. If further proof is needed why Tory local authorities in particular should not be the sole arbiters of housing need, it is the behaviour of those authorities with respect to Serplan. They have abdicated responsibility and caved in to the political diktat of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells.
The difference between the approaches of the Government and the Opposition could not be greater. We recognise that there are real tensions arising from real issues that will affect the social and economic well-being of people throughout the country. The Opposition are not prepared to recognise those tensions and the fact that a balance must be struck. To do otherwise would deny many people the chance of a home in the future, deny essential workers the ability of live near their work, fail to focus housing in towns and cities, add to the problems of traffic congestion and jeopardise local communities. We are determined to meet those challenges head on, and not duck them like the Opposition. Ours is a serious approach, which we will take forward.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 326.

Division No.236]
[10 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Hancock, Mike


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Harvey, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hawkins, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hayes, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heald, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ballard, Jackie
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Beggs, Roy
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Horam, John


Bercow, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Blunt, Crispin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Body, Sir Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jenkin, Bernard


Brady, Graham
Keetch, Paul


Brake, Tom
Key, Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Brazier, Julian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Breed, Colin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cable, Dr Vincent
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


(NEFife)
Uwyd, Elfyn


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Luff, Peter


(Chipping Barnet)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chidgey, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chope, Christopher
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Maclean, Rt Hon David


(Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton‱Brown, Geoffrey
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moore, Michael


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fallon, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Paterson, Owen


Fraser, Christopher
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gale, Roger
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Robertson, Laurence


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sanders, Adrian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian






Shepherd, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wallace, James


Soames, Nicholas
Walter, Robert


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael
Webb, Steve


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stunell, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Swayne, Desmond
Willetts, David


Syms, Robert
Willis, Phil


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (EsherS, Walton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Mr. Stephen Day and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Peter Atkinson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clwyd, Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Connarty, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Blizzard, Bob
(Copeland)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Borrow, David
Dalyell, Tarn


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Burden, Richard
(B'ham Hodge H)


Burgon, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Denham, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Drew, David


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Casale, Roger
Edwards, Huw


Caton, Martin
Efford, Clive


Cawsey, Ian
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Chapman, Ben (WirralS)
Ennis, Jeff


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clapham, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clark, Dr Lynda
Flint, Caroline


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Flynn, Paul





Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lock, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Gibson, Dr Ian
(Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McFall, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Gunnell, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Healey, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hill, Keith
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Motley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hoyle, Lindsay
(B'harn Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
(Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny
Osbome, Ms Sandra


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Kemp, Fraser
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Plaskitt, James


Khabra, Piara S
Pollard, Kerry


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pope, Greg


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laxton, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan (BuryS)
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rapson, Syd






Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Reed, Andrew (Loughboivugh)
(Dewsbury)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NWLeics)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruane, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salter, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner. Neil (Wigan)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheerman, Barry
Tynan, Bill


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vis.Dr Rudi


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Watts, David


Singh, Marsha
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith Miss Geraldine
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)



(Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui(Reddrtch)
Williams, Alan W (E Camarthen)


Smrth, John (Glamorgan)
wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilson Brian


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood Mike


Stevenson, George
Woodward, Shaun


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Stringer, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questiions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 167.

Division No. 237]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Borrow, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradshaw, Ben


Atkins, Charlotte
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin
Buck, Ms Karen


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Burgon, Colin


Begg, Miss Anne
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coborn, Rt Hon Richard


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Berry, Roger
Cann, Jamie


Best, Harold
Caplin, Ivor


Betts, Clive
Casale, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Caton, Martin





Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gunnell, John


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hanson, David


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Coleman, lain
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (CcVtry S)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
(Welwyn Hatheld)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
(Wolverh'ton SW)


(B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lepper, David


Filzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lock, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Gibson, Dr Ian
(Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McFall, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony






MacShane, Denis
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Salter, Martin


McWalter, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWilliam, John
Savidge, Malcolm


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mortey, Elliot
Stevenson, George


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


(B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Stinchcombe, Paul


(Aberavon)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mountford, Kali
Stringer, Graham


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmrth, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Norris, Dan
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Osbome, Ms Sandra
Touhig, Don


Palmer, Dr Nick
Trickett Jon


Pearson Ian
Truswell, Paul


Pendry Tom
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton)


Perham Ms Linda
Turner, Dennis (Kemptown)


pfcS Colin
Turner, Dr Desmond (NW Norfolk)


Pike, Pete L
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard Kerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pond, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Pound, Stephen
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
White, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
(Swansea W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wills, Michael


Quinn, Lawrie
Wilson, Brian


Rapson, Syd
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wood, Mike


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Woodward, Shaun


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Roy, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruane, Chris
Mr. David Jatnieson and


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Ballard, Jackie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beggs, Roy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bell, Martin (Tatton)





Bercow, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Body, Sir Richard
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lidington, David


Brake, Tom
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brand, Dr Peter
Livsey, Richard


Brazier, Julian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Browning, Mrs Angela
Loughton, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Burns, Simon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cable, Dr Vincent
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Maclean, Rt Hon David


(NEn Fife)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Madel, Sir David


(Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey


Chidgey, David
Maples, John


Chope, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


(Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Collins, Tim
Moore, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Oaten, Mark


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gale, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gidley, Sandra
Sanders, Adrian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Steen, Anthony


Hancock, Mike
Streeter, Gary


Harvey, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Horam, John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tyler, Paul


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wallace, James


Jenkin, Bernard
Walter, Robert


Keetch, Paul
Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Webb, Steve






Whitney, Sir Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy under the new regional planning policy arrangements, including a target for building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land and the tightening of planning controls on out of town shopping and ending the profligate use of land; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and improving the use of all land and preventing piecemeal greenfield development; believes the Government's planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to sustainable growth, safeguarding the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance; supports the targeting of regeneration initiatives in areas of greatest need and the Government's inter-linked policies for revitalising towns and cities and protecting the countryside; and applauds the Government's aim of giving everyone the opportunity of a decent home and recognises that the doubling of housing investment and other social housing reforms introduced by this Government are creating stronger, safer and more sustainable communities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to make a modest change to the Census Act 1920 so that a question on religious affiliation can be included in the next census of population in England and Wales in April 2001. This is necessary because, these days, many more people choose to identify themselves in respect of their religion or their culture, but there are no reliable figures for ethnic sub-groups or for religion. The 2001 census provides a unique opportunity to collect information from groups who increasingly prefer to identify themselves primarily in this way.
If we are to deal with discrimination in the provision of health, housing, schools, welfare and community care services, we require better information. We require better information about baseline figures against which racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups can be monitored. This information would be useful in the planning of religious education; it would have relevance in the regeneration of inner cities; and I would expect it to aid the very valuable work of voluntary sector religious groups.

Mr. David Maclean: My hon. Friend says that his Bill would aid planning for the provision of religious education, but since the proposed census question does not have a subset on the Christian religion determining whether one is Protestant or Catholic, how can that assist with the provision of religious education for families who wish their children to be brought up with a Catholic education?

Mr. Sayeed: I suggest that my right hon. Friend read the Lords debate, and particularly the answer given by the Bishop of Lincoln, who answered that question and dealt with it adequately. It would be wrong and unnecessary for me to parrot his words, as I believe that my right hon. Friend has them in front of him.
In their White Paper of last March on the 2001 census, the Government proposed including such a question. A wide range of faith organisations endorsed the proposal and it gained the support of the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Home Secretary's race relations forum and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Bill had a swift and unopposed passage in the other place and, I believe, commands the general support, but not the total support, of both sides of the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that an amendment accepted in the House of Lords means that it is not an offence to withhold the information. I am grateful for that at least, but, if there is no requirement to give the information, does not that mean that the information is not really required?

Mr. Sayeed: That is an interesting thought, but wrong, I think. Most people are prepared to give the information, but, because of the sensitivity of the question, it was


decided that the normal rules and penalties that appertain to filling all census questions should not apply in this particular matter.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend say whether there is any precedent for introducing in primary legislation a duty for which the penalty for non-compliance is subsequently waived?

Mr. Sayeed: I remind my hon. Friend that there has been a requirement for a number of years in Northern Ireland to complete a religious question. A similar non-mandatory duty in Scotland has recently received Royal Assent.
Amendment of the Census Act 1920 is necessary because the schedule to it does not currently provide for particulars on religion to be recorded.
Many of the questions that are traditionally asked in the census are specifically covered in the first five paragraphs of the schedule. Others that may from time to time be required are covered by paragraph 6, which provides for
any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population
However, legal advice over the years has been that religion is not a matter of either social or civil condition. Legislation is required to allow a question on religion to be on the census.
Public tests of census questions have shown that the proposed question on religious affiliation is acceptable. Those who have had to complete the forms have understood the question and the quality of the response is sufficiently high for reliable information to be obtained. The question was satisfactorily included in the census rehearsal in April last year.
The Bill is simple, clear and short. Clause 1 adds religion specifically to those particulars that may be required to be provided in a census.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend consider that the Bill complies with article 8 of the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Sayeed: I am advised by those civil servants who have briefed me on the matter that it does.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Civil servants? Then why is it not a Government Bill?

Mr. Sayeed: The Government can answer that question.

Mr. Leigh: Civil servants—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that we have probably had enough interventions from a sedentary position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. I do not want to have to repeat what I have just said.

Mr. Sayeed: I wish to put it on the record that I am most grateful to the Government for providing the time for a private Member's Bill on this matter.
Clause 1(2) removes the liability to the penalty under section 8 of the 1920 Act in respect of anyone who refuses or neglects to state in their census return the particulars with respect to religion. In effect, this makes any such question on religion voluntary. Although the statutory requirement under the 1920 Act to respond to all other census questions remains, the voluntary status of the proposed religious question deliberately reflects the sensitivity that surrounds this specific topic.
The Bill affects only England and Wales. The census is a devolved matter in Scotland where legislation on this question has, I understand, already received Royal Assent. It is also a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and this amendment to the census would align census legislation in England and Wales with that of Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that religious affiliation changes in a way that race or sex do not? Equally, given that religious affiliation is a very personal matter, what guarantee can he give about the accuracy of this information? After all, I might be a member of whatever religion I might fancy, and who could gainsay me? Who could say that I was wrong?

Mr. Sayeed: The census is a snapshot of the time that it is taken. Therefore, if my hon. Friend chooses one religion at that particular time, that is his religion of the moment. It does not mean that in 10 years' time he may not have changed his mind.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but it would be very helpful if you could tell us the Bill's status. I understand that this is a private Member's Bill which is being given Government time. It would be extremely helpful if you could confirm that that is the case. If it is, could you tell the House whether there are any precedents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct—that is precisely the case. There are many precedents for this procedure.

Mr. Sayeed: It is clear that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, no doubt, Labour Members, wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He referred earlier to the question being the same in Scotland as is proposed in England and Wales, but that is not correct. The question on religion in Scotland will be very differently phrased. How can he justify that?

Mr. Sayeed: I believe that I said that the Bill would be similar—I did not say that the question itself would be the same. As I understand it, the question in Scotland differentiates between different Christian religions.

Mr. Simon Thomas: On the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to Scotland, can he confirm


that the intention in this Bill is that the question in Wales will make direct reference to the Church in Wales, and not the Church of England?

Mr. Sayeed: I can confirm that that is the case. The question will not be phrased "the Church of England".

Mr. Hogg: This is one of the problems of introducing a private Member's Bill. By what authority does my hon. Friend tell us what the question will be in Wales?

Mr. Sayeed: By reading the notes and the information with which I have been provided. I suggest that if my right hon. and learned Friend had consulted the same information, he would have reached that answer without asking me.

Mr. John Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he has shown generosity and forbearance in the course of his short speech. Does he agree with the verdict of section 8 of the explanatory notes to the Bill that the response to the census will provide useful information about racial disadvantage and social exclusion?

Mr. Sayeed: Yes, I do, and that is why I am happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend as he reaches his peroration, but he is introducing a private Member's Bill and he has been receiving sensible advice from the official Box. Is it in order for the rest of us to consult the official Box so that we may receive advice on the relevant aspects of this highly complicated Bill? The precedent that permits only the Government to seek advice from officials clearly is not operative on this unique occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is receiving advice as the Member in charge of the Bill, which places him in a particular position.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What would happen if I went to the official Box to ask for advice?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should strongly discourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman from taking that course of action.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that you are ruling from the Chair that on occasions on which a private Member's Bill receives Government time, the promoter may have access, as of right, to official support that would normally be available only to a member of the Government? That strikes me as a new departure, and, if that is your ruling from the Chair, it seems to me that any future promoter of a private

Member's Bill who is privileged enough to have Government time may have access to which other private Members are being simultaneously denied.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not making any such ruling. Where the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire takes his advice is a matter for him. Conversations and advice occur in many different ways.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been good enough to say that you would discourage me from seeking advice from the official Box. In view of your later ruling, however, I anticipate that you would not mind if I did so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall repeat what I have already said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that I made my position quite clear. He ought not to pursue that line, and it would be sensible if we moved on.

Mr. Hogg: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not deal any further with that point of order.

Mr. Sayeed: I had intended to give a speech of only six minutes or so, but time has moved on. Perhaps I have been too generous in giving way. Let me answer a question that I failed fully to answer before the many points of order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about the question on the Welsh form—

Mr. Hogg: indicated dissent.

Mr. Sayeed: Someone asked about it. The right hon. or hon. Member in question can read the Bill's explanatory notes, which state:
In Wales the words "Church in Wales" will be substituted for the words "Church of England" within the Christian category.
That is where my information came from, and that is why I replied in the way that I did.
There are tensions in all multicultural and multi-faith societies. Discrimination fuels those tensions. Knowing the facts allows us better to plan what we do. This modest change to the Census Act 1920 will help us to gather facts and make a fairer society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not wish to speak for long, but the Bill is misconstrued, at least in its present form. I start from the premise that this matter should not be the subject of a private Member's Bill that is being given Government time, a process that I very much distrust. I shall be candid in saying that I distrust it because of its likely impact on matters such as fox hunting. All my life, I have defended the right of people to go fox hunting. We have fought the matter many times in private Members' Bills, and the Government, hitherto, have not given time to such a Bill. They promise to do so in future, and the fight will be hard fought. However, I do not want to encourage the practice


of a Government giving Government time to a private Member's Bill. That fact alone would be sufficient to cause me to oppose the measure.
The matter goes further than that. The Bill is intrusive. I am perfectly willing to concede that it is quite difficult to establish a set of disadvantages that flow from the Bill, other than the infringement of the principle. In the other place, Lord Stoddart made the point that the provision of that information could enable discriminatory Governments, at some future time, to pursue discriminatory policies. I accept that the noble Lord was right in principle, but I think that the likelihood is not great.
It is also true that the provision of such information could enable a Government more readily to impose burdensome regulation on industry and other sectors of the economy. That is more likely, and it is an objection. However, the objections are not themselves sufficient, so I return to the principle.
The principle that we should defend is that the Government of the day do not have a right to pry into our private affairs unless there is a compelling argument in favour of doing so. That is the principle that underlies the European convention on human rights, which the Government have incorporated into domestic law. For example, the House will be aware that—I think—article 8 applies to the right of privacy and to respect for private life and family, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).
That principle has been incorporated into domestic law. It is at least arguable that the passage of the Bill would infringe that right. However, in any event, we would be prying into other people's private life. We would be asking them to state their religion—although not with great conviction, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill includes the provision that it shall not be an offence to refuse to answer the question.
As the question is not asked with much conviction because it is an unenforceable obligation, why in God's name are we asking it? The fact that I cannot identify any really compelling disadvantages—

Mr. Forth: I will.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend may well do so, but I do not pretend that I can. However, I assert that there is a principle. I fear that, once we agree to giving Governments—by gradual steps—greater power to intrude, the consequence will be greater intrusion. I am against that.
I believe that the Government are rather totalitarian. They are oppressive in character. They ask of the people questions that they should not ask. They pass policies that they should not impose. They want to subject their fellow citizens to restrictions and obligations that should not be imposed. I do not see why I should be party to that tonight, so I very much hope that my hon. Friends and I will stop the Bill in its tracks, either by voting against it or by making plain our displeasure through extensive discussion.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I was disappointed by the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It will be regarded with tremendous dismay in my constituency.
A section of the British citizens of Rotherham believes that it is necessary for society to find out—on a voluntary basis—about the composition of the different religious communities to which its members belong.
It is extraordinary to hear Conservative Members say that a question—to be answered on a wholly voluntary basis—that is proposed for the census should not be tabled. Never since I entered the House have I seen such a blatant, cynical and cold-blooded desire on the part of the Conservative party not to know its own country. It is interested only in ideology, not facts about the society in which we live.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: I would rather continue, so that we may move swiftly to the vote. After my speech, there will be no need for more from the Opposition Benches.
Throughout its entire history, the Conservative party has denied the rights of other religions until forced to do so by social revolt—whether it was Catholic emancipation, the right of Jews to sit in the House, or the desire of hon. Members to affirm at the Dispatch Box. At every stage, the Conservative party has been reactionary and ideological, and has shown contempt for other religions.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. MacShane: I will not.

Mr. Leigh: But I am on the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. MacShane: For Conservative Members to say now that British citizens should not be allowed to declare their religion on a voluntary basis is an affront. I give way to the hon. Member for—

Mr. Forth: The Vatican.

Mr. MacShane: That is the voice of the old Tory party, which denied the Catholics of this country a place in this House.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member and I share in common a minority religion. In that sense, we approach many issues from the same point of view. Why is it necessary for governmental authorities to know our religion? What purpose would that serve? Have we not moved on from the time when people of our faith were persecuted in this country? We are all the same now—we are all British. That is all that matters. It does not matter whether we are Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Catholics or Protestants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to make a speech.

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes the powerful, classic, republican and secularist point that religion has no place in our society. Yet, each day, we start our sitting in this House with prayers. We have a monarch who is head of the Church of England. That is the kind of country in which we live, where religion is important.
The last census was so vague in this matter that I do not know the religious composition of my constituency. It would be helpful to have that information because there are huge issues associated with schooling, overseas relationships and even food safety and hygiene that are of genuine importance to Jews, Muslims and Hindus. My constituents would like such a question on the census and I support them. Many Catholics, Protestants and—certainly in Rotherham—Methodists do not think to the contrary. As a representative of my constituents, I ask the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Edward Davey: The House is right to debate and scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, we ought to be concerned. When 1 first heard about the Bill, I asked myself: What right have the Government to demand information about our religious beliefs? Why should Governments be interested in people's religious beliefs? I read the debate in the other place and the arguments advanced as to the benefits that the Bill would provide for society. I read about improved information for the planning of health care, education and social care, and that would, no doubt, be an important benefit. I read about the way in which the information would help the regeneration of inner cities, and that is an important benefit. However, the question that we must consider is the cost of setting aside those benefits.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davey: Let me make some progress first.
The benefits of the Bill are important, but the cost is that we are considering introducing a principle that will lead to intrusion into private beliefs. [Interruption.] If Labour Members will allow me to make some progress, I shall say why I am pleased that the voluntary amendment was accepted.
I was worried when I read the Bill when it was first published and then had its Second Reading in the House of Lords. There was no amendment to it at that stage for the information to be provided voluntarily. I have received representations from a constituent. Mr. John Harris of 109 Hook rise south, Chessington contacted me. Hon. Members may laugh, but my constituent is a distinguished genealogist who has studied censuses from every decade since the 19th century to pursue his hobby. He has noticed how, from census to census, the state has wanted more and more information and he is concerned that the Bill may require one piece of information too far.
I therefore considered what this private Member's Bill would require. If it were not for the amendment that was tabled in Committee in another place, I would oppose the Bill. However, I believe that that amendment, which would make the provision voluntary, has made the Bill acceptable—but only just. I want to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and the Minister for further assurances. For example, where will it say on the census form that the answer to the question is voluntary? I am sure that the Minister and, possibly the hon. Gentleman, will have received representations from civil

servants who have said, "Oh, we cannot put it on the form directly next to the question, because the form would be too cluttered."
Surely, if we are to make sure that the question is seen to be voluntary, it must be evident to all those answering it that they can do so purely on a voluntary basis. Therefore, that information must appear in bold and next to the question.

Mr. Tyrie: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he is labouring under a misapprehension. Answering the question is not voluntary; it is compulsory.

Mr. MacShane: Look in the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie: I have the Bill in front of me and it is clear that recipients will have to fill in the form. That will be compulsory. The only difference between this and all the other requirements is that no penalty will be imposed if one does not respond to this one. It is compulsory to fill in the questionnaire.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of playing with semantics. Everyone's understanding, including that of the Government and statistics officials, is that it will be a voluntary question. If there is any legal doubt about that, he will have to make his point rather more persuasively than he has just done. My reading of the provision that he drew to my attention is quite the opposite of his.

Mr. Tyrie: rose

Mr. David Heath: rose

Mr. Davey: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It is not a voluntary question, as has repeatedly been said. The person filling in the census form is required to provide the information. What will be removed is the sanction against the person who fails to fill in that question. That is a significant point.

Mr. Davey: I am afraid that, on this rare occasion, I disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not a compulsory question, because there is no penalty for failing to provide the information. I find it difficult to believe that a question is compulsory if there is no compulsion on the individual.

Mr. Tyrie: That is the crux of the matter and explains why it is an absurd Bill. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), it is a unique case. We have never before had primary legislation with another clause attached to it that says that there will be no penalty for disobeying the primary legislation. That is an extraordinary situation. If the provision were genuinely voluntary, why cannot it be made clear on the face of the Bill that it is voluntary?

Mr. Davey: I can only reiterate my argument that the question cannot be compulsory if there is no penalty for not answering it.
I want, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, the Government to give assurances that the census form will clearly state that the question is voluntary. Moreover, I want the Government's assurance that, after the 2001 census, they will review how that voluntary question has worked in practice. I would be worried if the question were to be automatically attached to every future census. The Government must reconsider the matter after the 2001 census.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I am also concerned about whether the Bill is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government are not required to state whether private Members' Bills are compatible, so I hope that the Economic Secretary will, for the record, reassure us that the Bill is compatible.
The benefits for which the Bill's promoters have argued, in this place and in the other place, are real. The information can help us to attack racial disadvantage and discrimination. If we can ensure that the right of the individual to withhold that information from the state is protected, by making the question voluntary, we can have the benefits without the costs to which other hon. Members have referred.

Mr. Eric Forth: The process in which we are now engaged is irregular, and it gives me grounds for believing that this has almost certainly been a Government Bill right from the start, but in a practice that we have now become used to, it is being smuggled through in the guise of a private Member's Bill.
I am strengthened in that view when I read what the Leader of the House said last Thursday. She admitted that the Bill's position is unusual and said that
Governments do not usually find time for private Members' Bills.
She went on, with the casual arrogance that we have come to expect from the Government, to say:
However, the Bill is believed to be uncontroversial.
What right the Leader of the House has to say that such a Bill is uncontroversial is quite beyond me, as she had no means of knowing what were the views of Members of this House. We have become all too used to such attitudes; the Government simply glibly assume that a Bill such as this is uncontroversial.
The Leader of the House went on to claim that the Bill
went through the House of Lords without any difficulty.
As we have already heard, a significant amendment was made to the Bill in the House of Lords because many of the Members of the other place expressed disquiet about a fundamental aspect of it. For the Leader of the House to claim that the Bill is uncontroversial and went through the other place without any difficulty strikes me as not only extraordinary, but rather typical of the Government's attitude to the legislative process and to this House and the other House.
The Leader of the House also said of the Bill:
The issue it addresses was raised after the main census legislation had gone through.

How careless—the Government had obviously taken their eye off the ball. She added that
there was no reason to anticipate that there would be a difficulty in the House of Commons.
I am generally an admirer of the right hon. Lady, but on this occasion her judgment of the House was inexplicably flawed. She should have known that such a Bill would be highly controversial in the House of Commons, as it has turned out to be, and I shall explain why.

Mr. James Gray: Before my right hon. Friend gets into the main part of his argument, he referred to remarks made by the Leader of the House. Despite making those remarks, she said shortly after:
The matter is one in which there is considerable public interest—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1106.]
Surely that is the case and surely it is perfectly reasonable to have a full debate on the matter tonight.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because later I shall expand on the nature of that public interest, which I find sinister. First, during my preliminary remarks I want to refer to the explanatory notes which, apart from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), are all the guidance we have. The provenance of those notes might be interesting for the House to consider. Usually, explanatory notes are prepared by the Government to help us to understand a Government Bill, but here we have what look suspiciously like Government explanatory notes, except that they allegedly explain a private Member's Bill.
Perhaps my hon. Friend—were he to seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—or even the Minister might tell us exactly what is the relationship between the Bill, the Government and the Bill's promoters in the other place and in this House. Does not it seem odd that a private Member's Bill should be graced by explanatory notes that bear all the imprints of the civil service? However, let us simply take the explanatory notes at face value. Here we must look for the background to the Bill and what it seeks to achieve. Paragraph 3 says:
Central government, local and health authorities, commercial business and the professions need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively.
That perfectly straightforward preamble lays the ground as to why we might want information of the sort that the census would provide. Paragraph 4 says:
The Government, in particular, needs this kind of information to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and to distribute resources effectively to local and health authorities to enable them to direct resources to where they are needed.
In a moment, we shall see that people's religious beliefs will be relevant to the formation of policy, the planning of services for specific groups and the distribution of resources. We are now deep into the real meaning behind the Bill, which appears to be that the Government intend taxpayers' money and Government planning to be directed to religious groups and to people's religious faith.

Mr. Fabricant: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on precisely how the Government will allocate resources on health? After all, was it not Shakespeare's character Shylock who said:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?


Surely people are human beings whether they are Jewish, Hindu, Christian or anything else. In health terms, what, precisely, is the difference?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend asks a good question. Later, I shall want to consider the interesting matter of how the Government will distribute resources or make policy for people who write "None" when a census form asks their religion, but I am now considering the preliminaries because I want to help the House and myself to understand exactly what the Government think they are about with these measures.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is conversant with the Treasury document "The 2001 Census of Population", but the rest of the House may not be. There is a definite difference in emphasis in paragraph 26 on page 8, which says:
The topics proposed for the Census are those that have been shown to be most needed by central and local government, the health service, academics, businesses and professional organisations.
What interpretation does he put on that?

Mr. Forth: That raises a question similar to that which I am posing about the formation of Government policy. What those different bodies in their different ways would do were they given the information that would flow from those questions is a matter for speculation and one to which we must all turn our minds. However, I am even more worried to read in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes that answers
to the question would help provide information which would supplement the output from the ethnic group question by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those originating from the Indian sub-continent. In turn, this will provide baseline figures against which the Government can monitor possible racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups.
That immediately leads to interesting speculation about the Government's perception—or that of the Bill's promoters—of the necessary connection between ethnicity and religious belief. Such an assumption is not only arrogant but dangerous.
Proposed question 10 on the census form will refer to Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh. Will it be assumed that Buddhists are from one ethnic group? Are not there white Buddhists and white Muslims? Those who devised the question show great arrogance in assuming that ethnicity and religious belief fall neatly into the same category. If they do not believe that, the aim that is set out in paragraph 8 is nonsense.

Mr. Edward Davey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a separate ethnicity question in the census?

Mr. Forth: That may well be, but unless one can cross-reference ethnicity and religion, the measure is meaningless because paragraph 8 makes an explicit connection between ethnicity and religious belief. I do not believe that policies should be formed or resources distributed on the basis of religious affiliation. I challenge that assumption, and I shall revert to it later.
For the moment, I simply stress that I reject the causal connection that paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes attempts to make. To make a connection between

religious faith, based on information that people are prepared to reveal, and Government policy on the distribution of resources is not only dubious practice, but an intrusion into the most private of personal matters: religious faith.
Before we consider that, we must get to the bottom of whether answering the question is voluntary. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked that question, but failed to deal with it satisfactorily. Let us consider the general proposition that the census form makes it clear that it is compulsory to answer all questions. People will approach the census form on that basis, unless it includes a disclaimer such as that which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned. His question remains valid and I hope that we shall receive a comprehensive and satisfactory answer from the Minister.
It is not enough to say that proposed new section (1A) states that
no person shall be liable to a penalty … for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars …
That simply means that the penalties that apply in relation to the rest of the census form would not apply to the question about religion.

Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the provisions of the Census Act 1920 as amended by the Bill? Failure to answer the question would be an offence that was not attended by a penalty.

Mr. Forth: That puts the individual who completes the form in an odd position.

Mr. Sayeed: Perhaps I can clear up the point. The front page of the census form contains a section entitled "Completing your form". I shall read it out for the edification of my right hon. Friend. It states:
Completion of the Census form is compulsory under the Census Act 1920. If you refuse to complete it, or give false information, you may be liable to a fine. This liability does not apply to Question 10 on religion.

Mr. Forth: That may provide the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. It may be helpful; that is for other hon. Members to decide.
If there is no compulsion to answer the question, that will almost certainly undermine the validity of the question and its ability to achieve the stated policy objectives set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the explanatory notes. If some people are prepared to answer the question but others are not, because they think it is intrusive and arrogant, which is my view, or because they are embarrassed, or because they are too idle to do so—the reason could be any or all of these—the resulting disproportionality and unrepresentativeness threaten to undermine the purpose of the Bill.
Let us speculate for a moment that people who would generally describe themselves as Christian do not feel obliged, or do not feel it necessary, to divulge the fact that they are Christian to the Government, whereas those who are Muslim are anxious to divulge that fact to the Government because their community leaders have told them, "If we can make sure that as many Muslims as possible answer the question and are therefore recorded in terms of their numbers, we have read in paragraph 8 of


the explanatory notes to the Bill that we will gets lots of resources because there are lots of us." That, presumably, is the aim behind the Bill, and that would be the motivation for particular groups—I pick Muslims more or less at random—to fill out the form.
Do Christians suppose that resources will be allocated to them on the basis of their answers on the census form? That is a question which I hope the Minister will answer. It flows directly from paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes dealing with the formation of policy and the allocation of resources. What assumptions can I make about the allocation of resources to Christians, following the census? I should like to know the answer. Presumably, if we are living in an even-handed, non-discriminatory society, as the Government would like us to think, there can be no distortion of distribution across the groups. If that is the case, I am not sure that I see the point of asking the question.
Matters get worse than that. Although the question proposed seeks to distinguish between Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, it lumps all the Christians together, for some peculiar reason. Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations are all assumed to be the same. Does that apply to Jehovah's Witnesses, for example—I take another example, more or less at random—or to any other sect or denomination that would generally be described as Christian, but may well have very different views, needs, communities or places in society?
Why are the Christians discriminated against by all being lumped together, while we take great care to make sure that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims are treated separately? It is all very odd.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is making a good point. Is it not also peculiar that in the census question, the word "Protestant" is used alongside the term "Church of England"? The Church of England is a Protestant sect, but a great many other Protestant sects are not listed. There is a curious anomaly in the wording of the question, which shows ignorance or lack of care on the part of the Government in wording it.

Mr. Forth: I shall leave those much better versed in matters theological to speculate on what such differences might mean. It is self-evident that there is probably as big a difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant aspects of the Christian religion as, say, there may be between Buddhism and Hinduism.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am concerned at the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of non-Christian religions. There is no suggestion that, for example, Muslims should be asked whether they are Sunnis or Ahmadiyas. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about beliefs within a faith system. Christianity is an overall faith system. There is no suggestion that there should be sub-divisions of other faith systems either. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims are part of the same faith system is offensive to many people.

Mr. Forth: I am not sure that that is what I said at all. I said the reverse: that, whereas the question seeks to distinguish between all those faiths, it lumps all the Christian denominations together.

Mr. Swayne: The distinction to which the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has drawn

attention—between Sunni Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims or whatever—is the critical information that is required to deliver the promises to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes. It is the information on those minorities within what the hon. Lady quaintly called "faith systems" that determines whether they are disadvantaged.

Mr. Forth: I should have thought that that was almost self-evidently the case, but apparently it is not to the hon. Lady.
I do not accept the objectives in paragraph 8, because I do not believe that possible racial disadvantage and so-called social exclusion within particular minority groups will be dealt with by the answers that may voluntarily be given to the question outlined in paragraph 10. I simply do not accept that paragraph 10 can deliver the objectives of paragraph 8, quite apart from the fact that it is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion by the state into some of the most private aspects of people's lives. All of that is entirely unsatisfactory. I still hope that we shall get an answer later from the Minister as to why it is believed that racial disadvantage and social exclusion can somehow be determined by the answer to the question in paragraph 10. I see no necessary or obvious relationship between racial or ethnicity distinctions and those set out in paragraph 10—none, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh. I just do not see the connection.
In almost every single respect, this Bill fails all the tests. It fails the test of our historic desire to keep the state and the Government out of people's private, personal and, in particular, religious lives. It fails its own test of the dubious objectives set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the explanatory notes. It fails the test because it seeks to make the answering of the questions voluntary instead of compulsory, and therefore almost certainly undermines any purpose that it might have had.
The Bill is unnecessary and intrusive. It has some sinister elements, which I believe we should resist strongly. Unless we hear some persuasive answers to these questions from the Minister at the end of the debate, I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.

Fiona Mactaggart: I simply want to use this opportunity to give some examples of how this kind of information could improve the lives of a substantial number of people in my constituency. I also thought that it might illuminate and teach some hon. Members about why this exercise is worth while.
Let us take, for example, the Muslim faith. For people of that faith, an important and deeply held part of their religion is to bury the dead swiftly. One of the problems faced by Muslims in Slough is that they cannot get deaths registered over the weekend. That causes my constituents deep offence and distress.
The results of a census such as this could inform the planning of registrars of births, marriages and deaths, so that they could ensure that death certificates were issued, deaths were registered and burials could take place at weekends.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware that a similar rule exists within the Jewish religion? She will know that


there have been Jews in the United Kingdom for at least 1,000 years. Does she realise that Jewish burials have taken place despite the fact that this Bill has not been enacted?

Fiona Mactaggart: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Jewish organisations support the Bill, partly because of the problems that members of that faith have experienced in ensuring that burials take place swiftly enough.

Mr. Fabricant: That is absolute rubbish—and I know it. [Laughter.]

Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Lady made a serious and important point about the burying of the dead in the Muslim community. There is a practical solution—putting registrars in the hospitals. I have given some thought to the matter; some expense would be involved, but there might also be some saving. Anyway, it is not a laughing matter. What the hon. Lady must explain is why it is essential to organise a census establishing people's religious faith to solve that practical problem.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am afraid that services are currently planned on the basis of what people think others believe, rather than on the basis of what people know about others' beliefs. I think that a census giving real evidence of such knowledge could ensure that services meet the differing needs of people who have different beliefs.
Another factor would affect another group in my constituency, in a slightly different way. I refer to the police training budget. Members of the Sikh religion who observe the five Ks carry knives with them. I have encountered cases in which young police officers, new to Slough, have arrested young men who have been carrying knives as part of their religious belief. That does not happen in the case of more experienced police officers, because they recognise that in the circumstances of the faith the person carrying the weapon is not, in fact, carrying a weapon, but is carrying a religious artefact.

Mr. Hogg: That is a problem of bad training. If the hon. Lady consults the legislation that makes it an offence to carry a sharp-bladed instrument, she will find that there is a specific exemption in respect of those who carry such instruments as part of their faith.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that that is not a high priority in police officers' training in his constituency, whereas it must be a high priority in Slough police officers' training. My point is that police training authorities should be able to target their training appropriately, where it is most needed.
We need information that can ensure that services of all kinds are better shaped to meet the needs of the diverse communities that form our whole community. No one is suggesting that particular faiths should receive state subventions. We are trying to ensure that state services developed in a Christian tradition, which match the habits of the Christian faith, begin to match more fairly and accurately the beliefs and habits of other faiths. If we do

that, we can ensure that members of minority faiths feel truly a part of our whole community, feel that their faiths and beliefs are respected, and feel that they can truly participate. If we fail to do that, we shall fail to meet their needs.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I think that all censuses constitute an intrusion into our private lives, and that all censuses require considerable justification. A summary of a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights agrees. It states:
The compulsory requirement to provide information to a census (including sex, marital status, place of birth)
—incidentally, religion is not mentioned—
was found to be an interference with private and family life.
The summary said that that could be justified in certain circumstances relating to the public good, but the public good must be justified thoroughly and carefully, and I am not sure that it has in the case of adding religion to the census.
I have not yet heard a convincing argument—certainly not from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—for what we shall gain from the addition of religion; nor do I fully understand where the pressure has come from. I have a hint of a suspicion that some religious groups may hope that, for example, they can obtain the resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), or can gain access to schools devoted exclusively to their faith, such as Church of England and Roman Catholic schools do now. However, I am only guessing. I still have not heard clearly what the real reason for adding the question is.

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Muslim Council of Britain strongly supports the question on the ground that there is a social time bomb ticking away unless something is done now for the more equitable allocation of public services and better planning on matters such as community relations, health care, education, employment and housing. It certainly believes that the question will allow the Government to direct money and funding to it.

Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend has firmed up my suspicion.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend raised the question of whether the census might be used to allocate funds to schools, but surely the only schools that are divided according to religion are Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in England and in Scotland. That is the only question that the census specifically fails to ask. It does not count the number of Roman Catholics compared with the number of Protestants; it counts merely the number of Christians. There is no provision at the moment for schools of other faiths.

Mr. Tyrie: On the face of it, that may also be a good point, but I would need to think a little more carefully before being absolutely sure.

Mr. Sayeed: rose

Mr. Swayne: rose

Mr. Tyrie: If I may, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) in a moment. I should like to give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

Mr. Swayne: The objective may be to identify social exclusion so as to be able to target resources better, but I


do not believe that the information that is being asked for will provide the quality of information to be able to deliver that objective. Surely, the most disadvantaged group in the Muslim community is the Bahais. Therefore, one would wish to know where they were located and how many of them there were. The proposal will not deliver that.

Mr. Tyrie: That is a powerful and persuasive point and further points us in the direction of saying that the information will not be valuable.

Mr. Sayeed: I entirely refute the suggestion that the Bill has been promoted on behalf solely of the Muslim community. It is true that the Muslims have supported it, but so have the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Hindus and the Sikhs.

Mr. Tyrie: I believe that the Jewish community is divided on the matter. Indeed, I was approached by a member of that community about the Bill, who first alerted me to take an interest in it. It would be wrong to suggest that there is uniform and full support from all sections of those faiths.
Furthermore, if I were a Jew, having seen what has happened in the past century, I would be deeply concerned at the idea that there should be an identification of Jews in that way in a census.

Several hon: . Members rose

Mr. Tyrie: I shall give way in a moment.
In a free society such as we live in at the moment, everyone, including all Jews, can rest assured that they will not find themselves disadvantaged in any way by providing such information, but, historically, some ethnic and religious groups, particularly the Jewish community, have suffered greatly from being so identified. I can well imagine that that served as one of the reasons why many people in the Jewish community are concerned about the matter.

Mr. Hogg: May I raise the following point with my hon. Friend? If indeed the question is designed primarily to channel resources to particular groups, does he understand that many of us who represent the rural areas will suspect that the resources will be channelled to the inner cities and away from the rural areas? That is a matter that concerns all of those who represent the countryside.

Mr. Tyrie: That is another interesting point, which may well be right. Again, I would want to think about it more carefully before being absolutely sure.

Several hon: . Members rose

Mr. Tyrie: I will give way one more time. If the House will forgive me, I give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in July 1999, the Board of Deputies of British Jews voted overwhelmingly for the inclusion of the question in the census?

Mr. Tyrie: I was aware of that, but I stand by the points that I made. It is not true that the whole of the Jewish community overwhelmingly supports the proposal. Many in that community do not.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way, I think, six or seven times. There are not

many things that I want to say. It seems that almost everyone else is getting their speeches into mine. However, I shall do my best to make the few further points that I wanted to make.
I think that many of the points that we have just heard made in interventions have slowly dawned on those who originally supported the Bill. I think that that is why the Bill has been curiously amended to include subsection (2), which suggests that people will not pay a penalty if they do not comply with subsection (1). I can only assume that the change has been made because those who support the Bill have realised that, as I believe, the Bill goes a step too far in demanding in a census information on religious belief.
There has been some discussion—I should like to clarify the point once and for all—about whether this is a compulsory measure. Some hon. Members have said that it is a voluntary measure.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already given way seven or eight times—[HoN. MEMBERS: "To Opposition Members"]—and I had better move on. Initially, only Opposition Members sought to intervene. However, in view of that demand, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being susceptible to persuasion. As no penalty is associated with the failure or refusal to supply the information specified in the Bill, could the hon. Gentleman give his definition of compulsion? As providing the information would be a voluntary act, to which compulsory element does he so object?

Mr. Tyrie: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had controlled himself for a moment, because I was about to deal with precisely that point. I am holding a copy of the Census Act 1920, which makes it absolutely clear that it is an offence not to fill in the questionnaire in full. The Bill makes it equally clear that religion will be added to the schedule listing the questions that it will be an offence not to answer. However, although not answering the question will be an offence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, there will not be a penalty for not answering it. It will be a unique case in English law.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie: No. I should like to make a little bit progress in my speech.

Mr. David Taylor: On that very point.

Mr. Tyrie: No. I have given way, I think, eight times, and I really should like to make some progress.
Extraordinarily, although it is an offence not to fill in the census, in this specific case, no penalty will be applied to those who fail to provide the information. Earlier, I inquired whether such a bizarre state of affairs existed anywhere else in British primary law. I sought an answer to that question from the Library and from a professor of


law at London university no one could tell me of one example in primary English law in which a legal duty is imposed for the first time on people but the civil penalty for non-compliance is waived. It is very curious state of affairs.
I do not like this Bill, which is unnecessarily intrusive. In principle, I do not like censuses, which I am not sure necessarily gather much information of value, although I acknowledge that some public good can come from them. I have not been convinced by anything that I have heard yet in this debate that anything of benefit would come from adding religion to the 1920 Act.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I hope that, having established the principle of dealing with private Members' Bills in Government time, Ministers will make Government time available for consideration of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, which deals with a matter of deep significance for Opposition Members.
I rise with some trepidation to say that Opposition Front Benchers support the Bill. However, I hasten to tell my hon. Friends—at least I hope that they are still my hon. Friends—that they have a free vote in this matter.

Mr. Hogg: We always have a free vote. We are paid for our opinion—nobody else's.

Mr. Ottaway: The reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has a free vote is so that he may express his opinions, and I shall come to those in a second.
We recognise that certain information is necessary to achieve the objective of good government. For example, we agree with the statements in paragraph 64 of the White Paper that the information could be of help in identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, especially those originating from the Indian sub-continent, a point made by right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It may be of interest to the House to know that such a question is already included in the census in Northern Ireland, where the information is used to help in the monitoring of equality policies.
I share my hon. Friends' concerns about the dubious benefit that is to be derived from the legislation, but that is not a reason for not trying. If there is some benefit to be derived from the information, it is worth having, and that is why—on balance—we support the Bill. However, I have listened closely to what my hon. Friends have said and, if it is felt appropriate to move amendments to cover those points in Committee, we shall not hesitate to do so.

Mr. Gray: In Northern Ireland, the census asks for a distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants, which information is important in the delivery of proper government in Northern Ireland. If the census is to aid the delivery of proper government on the mainland of Great Britain, can my hon. Friend tell us by what mechanism Government aid can possibly be allocated to any religious group on the basis of the information gained? The answer is not through the standard spending assessment, which takes account of race.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall come to the proposed question, but the issue of what is done with the information is a

matter for the person who assesses it and tries to make a decision on what will be done with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) alluded to the important point about whether much of the census can be replaced by market research. The census will cost the enormous sum of £254 million and I strongly suspect that much of the information gleaned from it is available from market research companies. The level of detail in the data that are held by private companies is remarkable. What is more, it is held on a postcode basis, which enables business and anybody else who wishes to to analyse the data. As usual, business is far ahead of Government and while we do not quarrel with the need for a census in 2001, an analysis should be made before the next census in 2011 of how much can be obtained from the private sector instead of through the lumbering process of the census.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman seems to be developing the theory that successive censuses are less valuable because market research organisations can provide alternative information. Would it astonish him to learn that much of the information that market research companies collect is rooted in the information collected in the census?

Mr. Ottaway: That may or may not be right, but much of the information is also obtained from examining the size of a person's house. Aerial photography plays an important part in assessing the wealth and prosperity of a particular region. I am not sure whether market research, which is being done not on a yearly, monthly or weekly basis, but on a daily basis, can wait 10 years for the next census.
The organisation Christian Research estimates that 65 per cent of the UK is Christian and that non-Christian religions comprise 8 per cent, with at least 27 per cent of the country being agnostic. That information is available already, before the need for a census. It leads to the very important point made by the National Secular Society, that if, for example, the census shows that 65 per cent. have indicated that they are Christian, one could get an inflated idea of the numbers of religious adherents. There is a very big difference between being a member of a particular religion and a follower of that religion, and the answer would not address the difference. That is an important point, which we shall raise in Committee.
With the Churches' attendances falling rapidly, those ticking the "None" box could quite conceivably be the largest category. It would be interesting to compare those professing to have a religion with attendance at places of worship.
I now come to the question of compulsion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred a great deal to the speech of Lord Stoddart in the other place. If I had been Lord Stoddart I would have made exactly the same speech at the time. It was based on the fact that the Bill before the other place did not have the no-liability element that we have in the Bill today. In fact, it was a matter of some surprise to us that on Second Reading in the other place the Government argued for compulsion and for a fine. We welcome the fact that they have revised that view.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is only partly right about that. Obviously, the fact that failure to respond is not an


offence punishable by a penalty is an improvement, but the point that the noble Lord was making was that this information, whether given voluntarily or as a result of compulsion, could be of value to certain people, and he cited governments headed by somebody like Hitler. That was his broad point: that it could be used by a discriminating Government. He was not focusing particularly on whether disclosure was voluntary or compulsory.

Mr. Ottaway: I do not quarrel with that proposition, but if answering the question is voluntary—I shall come to the voluntary nature in a moment—it is a matter of choice for an individual whether or not he fills in the answer. Obviously, he will be aware of the consequences of doing so, and will have to accept the consequences.

Mr. Tyrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that if it is clearly indicated that a response is voluntary, the value of the information collected will be greatly diminished?

Mr. Ottaway: I suspect that that is right, but my hon. Friend knows as well as I do that an opinion poll based on, I think, 1,050 people is fairly accurate. If, say, 10 million out of a population of 50 million fill in the answer, it will be a fair guide to what is happening in society as a whole.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is not the truth of the matter that most followers of faiths are proud of their faith, and are therefore more likely to respond to the question than not? Those who do not will be those with no particular interest.

Mr. Ottaway: I think that that is right, but I repeat that it is a matter of choice as to whether an individual answers the question. It is impossible for us to try to second-guess here tonight exactly how these data will work out, but I repeat what I said at the outset, which is that that is not a reason for not trying. That is why we support the measure.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way a second time, and I am grateful to him. Does he not agree that the fact that the individual may or may not be proud of his particular religion is not at all a good reason for the state to collect statistics about how many people are in that religion? It is of absolutely no relevance. One might as well say, "I'm proud of my very active sex life" and therefore put that in the census—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but I am not.

Mr. Ottaway: The House might be interested in my hon. Friend's sex life, but a discussion of that could fall foul of what you might have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: pride is irrelevant, but people who fill in the box do so out of personal choice, whatever the reasons may be. That is a principle to which the Conservative party very much subscribes.
My noble Friend Lord Weatherill moved an amendment to his Bill in the other place to remove the liability point. We agree with his sentiment that the arguments about a voluntary question should be taken seriously. Religion and religious belief are private matters. So are political beliefs, which is why we have secret ballots. Ballot forms are completed in confidence and according to personal choice.
In our judgment, it is essential that no one should be liable to a penalty for refusing or declining to answer the question. If the Bill did not make that exemption, it would not have the support of the Conservative party. The draft census forms states that it is compulsory to complete the census and that failure to do so attracts a fine. It adds that the liability does not apply to question 10, on religion, which covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester.
We welcome the removal of the fine, but consider that a note to that effect should be printed next to the question on religion in the census form. That would make it absolutely clear that the question is voluntary and that failure to answer it carries no penalty. We will table an amendment to that effect in Committee. If the Census Act 1920 has to be amended to address the point, that will be at the heart of the amendment. Some people do not read the small print on the front of the census form, and the voluntary nature of the question should be made plain for all to see.

Mr. Hogg: May I encourage my hon. Friend to go down the road that he is outlining? He will know that the document to which he has referred is only a draft, and that it is authorised by statutory instrument. Therefore, should not what appears by statutory instrument be set out on the face of the Bill? Only by that means can the House get the reassurance that it seeks.

Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point which I should like to take time to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the wording of the question, which appears in full in paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes. It makes it clear that the word "Christian" includes
Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations.
As my hon. Friend says, that puts "Church of England" in a different category from "Protestant" and is therefore inaccurate and clumsy. The term "Protestant" is an umbrella term and is not a denomination in itself, as the question suggests. The "Oxford English Dictionary" defines the word as pertaining to
a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation.
It is clear that the distinction is between Catholic and Protestant, and that the term "Church of England" should be included in the term "Protestant". Unless the Economic Secretary wants an enormous postbag on the matter, I suggest that she considers that point very seriously.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend said that we know what the question on religion will be because it is set out in the explanatory notes. I remind him that such notes do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading tonight, there is no guarantee that the words that appear in the notes will appear in the census.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which gives the Government a good opportunity to reflect on the point that I have just made.
After this census, the Government will arguably have a fairly accurate picture of the religious breakdown of the communities of England and Wales. In October 1999,


the other place considered the possibility of legislation against religious discrimination. There is a slight whiff in all this that some law might follow on religious discrimination. Summing up for the Government in that debate, Lord Bassam said that he was waiting for the results of research commissioned by the university of Derby before making any further decisions. I should be grateful if, some nine months later, the Minister could enlighten us as to whether the matter has progressed at all, whether the research is available and whether the Government have any preliminary thoughts on the matter.
This is a Bill for England and Wales. It seems right and proper to us that such a sensitive matter, which affects only the people of England and Wales, should be decided only by Members of Parliament representing seats in England and Wales. The 2001 census in Scotland will be the first for which the Scottish Parliament has had a legislative responsibility. Experience shows that religious attitudes north of the border can vary from those south of the border. This is a thoroughly appropriate matter for this Parliament to decide in England and Wales, and for the Scottish Parliament to decide in Scotland. Just as I do not for one minute seek to interfere in the Scottish process, I trust that Members of Parliament representing Scottish seats will not seek to interfere in this Bill.
This is a small but important measure and it has the Conservative party's support.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has already referred to the echoes that the Bill will have in the memories of some older people in the United Kingdom. In 1934, the German Government introduced legislation to include a clause in their census information asking for the religion of their subjects. My hon. Friend is right to say that the position in the United Kingdom is, thank God, nothing like that which existed in Germany then and, please God, it never will be.
Having listened to the debate, I can see no real reason for this information to be requested. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that it would give us a better understanding of the different needs of religious communities. I do not agree with her.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: In a moment. I agree that it is important to understand the needs of Hindus, Muslimswhether they be Shi'ite or Sunni—and orthodox, reform or liberal Jews. However, I do not understand—and perhaps the hon. Lady will elucidate this for me—how information from the census will help us to understand better the working of individual religions in this country and, indeed, the rest of the world.

Fiona Mactaggart: It will not help us to understand different religions. It will inform us where observers of various religions live so that we can ensure that public services in those areas fit their needs.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer, but I still do not follow her logic. The hon. Member for

Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has now left the Chamber—which is oh so typical of the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Oh, he is there; he has moved. The hon. Gentleman said that it would help us better to provide food. I think that he was alluding to halal and kosher food. Again, I do not see his point, because whether halal or kosher food is available is determined not by the religion one was brought up in or adheres to, but what one chooses to buy in a shop. There are halal shops and kosher shops because Jewish people and Muslim people—[Interruption.] Ministers may laugh and mock, but they know nothing about the Jewish or Muslim religions. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) wants to intervene, I would be happy for him to do so. The point is that the shops exist simply because there is a demand for them. Kosher shops have existed for hundreds of years, and halal shops for more than 80 or 90 years. They did not come into existence because of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: In response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), may I say that the Bill means that the police force would be informed from the census about where the Sikh community exists? I should rather expect the police in Slough to know that Sikhs live in Slough.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. I began by saying that some would hear an echo of the days of 1934 when the German Government took a census. The last thing that those who remember that period will want is for the police to know where particular religious communities exist.
Several hon. Members have mentioned that an overwhelming majority of the Board of Deputies of British Jews supports the Bill. Those Members have suggested that that means that the Jewish community supports it, but their argument is fallacious in the extreme. My pair, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has rightly pointed out many times—he is not always right, but he often is—that the board rarely speaks for the Jewish population. Many Jews will feel—perhaps unreasonably, but they will feel it none the less—disquiet about this sort of information being included in a British Bill.
To my mind, the Bill is very un-British. I cannot see what it is intended to achieve. I cannot see what help it will give to health care, social service provision or anything else provided by the state if we simply know the percentage of Jews, Christians or Buddhists among the total population.

Mr. Leigh: We are trickling around the issue. I have a great deal of sympathy for Muslims who want schools funded by the state as schools are funded for Catholics, Jews or members of the Church of England. Would it not be honest to admit that therein lies the real purpose behind the Bill? The Muslim community wants to be identified as a significant minority in certain areas so that it may argue for its own schools and facilities. Why not just admit that instead of trying to pretend that there is some bigger or wider issue?

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not go down that road, except to say that Muslim schools can be set up, provided that the people involved accept that non-Muslims must be able to attend, as with Jewish, Church of England and Catholic


schools, and that the national curriculum is adhered to. In addition, if most of the teaching is in English, there is no reason why Muslim schools cannot be state funded.

Mr. Leigh: You do not need a census to know that.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is quite right.
I do not think that the Bill is a healthy one. Nor, from a legal point of view, is it elegant. I ask the Minister for an assurance that a clear statement will appear alongside the question saying that, although it is compulsory to answer—it is compulsory to answer all census questions—no penalty will attach to people who do not. Many people, particularly Muslims or those who have recently entered the country—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member, Mr. MacShane, who has changed his name for a reason that I do not understand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that we use moderate language in argument in the House; I do not like the way that he is going.

Mr. Fabricant: I wanted to point out only that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) tries to demonstrate that we should be open, yet, for some reason, he is ashamed of his original name. I find that strange and I do not understand it. Many people might suggest that it would be sensible for me to change the name Fabricant—it does not fit easily on a poster, but I see no reason to change. However, we digress—(HoN. MEMBERS: "What was the hon. Gentleman's name?"] It was an elegant and proud Polish name. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should have changed it. Perhaps he thought that there was discrimination in the Labour party and that by adopting a Scottish name—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard quite enough of that from the hon. Gentleman. Has he finished his speech?

Mr. Fabricant: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to discriminate against the hon. Member for Rotherham—just as I do not want the Government to discriminate against members of the community who feel that they would be prejudiced by giving information of the type required by the Bill.
I ask the Minister to undertake that the question will be followed by a statement that no penalty will be attracted by failure to answer it. I hope that she will bear in mind the fact that many of the people filling in the census will be new immigrants. Because of that, they may not have a good command of the English language. The statement needs to be made plainly and clearly so that there is no misunderstanding—[Interruption.] The Minister claims that she does not understand what I am saying. If she goes out into the community, she will find that many people—including older people who have lived in this country for many years, as well as immigrants—are unable to read six-point text.
There must be a clear statement that there will be no penalty for not answering the question. If the Minister gives that undertaking, perhaps I shall not vote against the Bill.

Mr. James Gray: An important principle has always lain beneath the good governance of the United Kingdom, but not beneath that of states such as the old Russia and present-day China; it is that the state should not have unnecessary information about private individuals. That is an extremely important principle: the state should know only what it needs to know about particular people.
That principle is upheld in many aspects of government—many of which have been advanced by Labour—for example, the Data Protection Act 1998. The whole principle behind that measure is to ensure that information about individuals is not known unless it is absolutely necessary. The same point applies to the Freedom of Information Bill. The Government will provide much information and will tell individuals what they know about them.
We have always espoused those important principles in this country. They were never espoused by totalitarian states—under Hitler, or in Russia or China. The fundamental question behind the debate is: why should the state need to know people's precise religious affiliations—if they have them? As we have heard, about one third of the nation would state that they have no religious affiliation.
We are trying to address some important questions. Is it possible for the state to know that information? Is it useful statistical information? Can the census actually collect it? Even if it can be collected, will it be useful to the state?
There are some fundamental difficulties in respect of the collection of such statistical information. A significant number of people with a religious affiliation will choose—properly—not to answer the question. I should be one of them. I am very much a practising Christian, but I see no reason why the state should want to know that. It is a private matter. I attend my little church in Slaughterford on Sundays; I am a profound, practising Christian. I see no reason at all why the state should need to know that. I imagine that many people across the nation take precisely the position that their religion is a private matter between them and their God and there is no reason to declare it on a form.

Mr. Peter Bradley: If answering the question is voluntary, the individual is at liberty to divulge that information if they choose. The hon. Gentleman has just done so and tomorrow's Hansard will record the faith that he follows and where he goes to church. What is the problem?

Mr. Gray: Neither of the hon. Gentleman's two points is particularly valid. The voluntary nature of the question is an important safeguard, but the Government's original drafting did not recognise that. It stated that information was compulsory and that people would go to prison or pay a fine if they did not answer. It was only thanks to amendments by my noble Friends in the other place that the voluntary element was introduced into the Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the voluntary nature of the reply means that it does not matter, and if a large number of people will not answer, what is the point of the question in the first place?

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: The debate has been rather broken up, when we should be thinking quietly and cooly about the logic behind the arguments. I came here tonight hoping to support the Bill—thinking, because of my convictions, that a question about religion would provide useful information. My remarks are the result of listening carefully, so I am reluctant to give way to many light-hearted interventions.

Mr. Foster: My question is not at all light hearted. Most faith groups seriously want to make their point. How will they have the opportunity to do so if not by this method? The provision provides an opportunity rather than imposing an obligation.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman made the point earlier that because people take pride in their religion and want the public to know that they are profoundly affected by it, a good way to do that is through the census—as some form of PR exercise for the promotion of particular religions. That is contrary to the basis of the 1920 Act.
There are many religious organisations of one sort or another. I was pleased to attend the Elim Pentecostal church in Chippenham last Friday, whose members would say, "We have plenty of ways of letting people know our faith. We do not need to tick a box on the census." That apart, I am not sure that is a proper use of public money and public information systems, simply so that faith groups can demonstrate pride in their faith. If it is, many other questions could be introduced to benefit particular groups—such as one about political affiliations. I am proud that I am a Conservative and there are many proud Conservatives across the nation. We ought to have a box on the form that asks, "Are you or are you not a Conservative?" That would give me the opportunity to demonstrate my pride in being one. I do not believe that pride in one's religious convictions is necessarily a good reason for including a question about it in the census.
Given that a large number of people will refuse to answer the only question to which a reply is voluntary, that would—many statisticians agree—reduce the value of the responses. Also, many people would react to the question off the top of their heads. When most people in the Army are asked in a form to give their religion, they put Church of England even though they have not been to church for many years. What does one put if one is a lapsed Roman Catholic or a Christian by baptism who has since adopted the Jewish faith? The question requires a factual answer, with no opportunity for commentary or remarks about the profundity of one's faith.

Mr. Sayeed: There is a write-in section associated with that particular question on the proposed form, which gives the opportunity to amplify one's reply.
May I make one further point? John Rickman, who was the Clerk to the House of Commons at the end of the 18th century, said that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Mr. Gray: I do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point about the Clerk to the House of Commons at the

end of the 18th century who laid out 12 purposes for the census. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said the 19th century. However, if he checks, he will find that Mr. Rickman lived at the end of the 18th century. He laid out 12 purposes for the census, and, as my hon. Friend said, the first is that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the basis of legislation. That is the case and for 200 years not knowing people's religious faiths has not prevented us from having the intimate knowledge to form a rational basis for legislation and diplomacy. If my hon. Friend is saying that, under the Government of every political persuasion for the past 200 years, we have been a poor Parliament that does not know a rational basis for legislation and diplomacy, he is incorrect.

Mr. Sayeed: This will be my final intervention on my hon. Friend's speech. The point is that more people with faiths other than Christianity live in this country than did in the past. We are increasingly a multi-faith, multicultural society. Some people might not like that, but it is a fact.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is correct. I, for one, welcome that change in our society in comparatively recent years. That, in itself, is not necessarily an argument for increasing the number of questions on the census in the way that the Bill proposes; nor does it support what my hon. Friend said about the first purpose that the Clerk in the 18th century laid out for the census. Indeed, if, in the 18th century, the purpose of the census was to know about the nation, I do not understand why the fact that we are now a multi-faith society is particularly relevant.
Incidentally, I conform to the 70 per cent. of this nation who remain Christian and I am speaking in a Chamber that opens every day with a Christian form of worship. I suspect and hope that we will remain a largely Christian society.

Mr. Leigh: Much cant has been spoken in the debate and there has been a failure of honesty. The truth is that many Christians are nominal, lazy or will not fill in the form. The Muslim community, commendably from its point of view, is much keener and more vibrant and it is growing. Its members will fill out the form. Rightly, they are being pressed to do that by the Muslim community so that it can extend its influence in certain communities.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall come to it shortly.
My first point was that the statistical information that is collected is likely to be inaccurate. I have touched on two ways in which I think that it will be inaccurate, but there are many others that we could discuss. For example, there is an important omission in that it lumps all so-called Christians together and lists other faiths individually. Statistically, that is nonsense and I very much hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider changing that provision. It might be interesting to have information on denominations in the Christian faith around the nation. However, the census is likely to provide statistically unsatisfactory information.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman said that he was one of the 70 per cent. of the people of this country who are Christian. From what does he derive that information if it was not census or quasi-census material?

Mr. Gray: I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) who provided those figures. They may not be correct, and the information is anecdotal. It is important that the information should remain anecdotal, because there is no need for us in the Chamber to be able to say that 23,748,637 people are Christian and that 2 million are Muslim. There is no need for us to have that information; it is anecdotal. The Church of England does not know the figures for its membership, although the Church of Scotland has slightly better information on its membership because one has to sign up to become a member of that Church. However, many faiths do not know themselves how many members they have, and they do not have to know that. However, the Bill will introduce a new provision that will require the Government to know with precision and down to the last person how many people are members of each religion.
I said that 70 per cent. of the people of this country are Christian. That information is anecdotal and the figure may well be incorrect. The figure may be only 50 or 60 per cent., but that does not matter. The quality of people's faith is what matters, not the number of people who hold it. It is not about quantity, but about quality.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gray: I am trying to make a little progress, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way now.
The statistical information that the question will produce is likely to be extremely inaccurate, anecdotal and, therefore, not particularly useful even to people on the left wing who love statistics. It does not surprise me that the statistical arguments for the question come from Labour Members, who love to have figures and to know the nitty-gritty details of what people do. Even to them, the statistics are likely to seem rather inaccurate. Certainly Christians, such as myself and others who consider what has been said during the debate, can make sure that the statistics are inaccurate by, in my case, putting myself down as nothing or as a Muslim or a Sikh, simply to undermine the value of the information.
Let us suppose for one second that, in Committee, the questionnaire or another part of the Bill is changed in such a way that the information would be 100 per cent. valid, although I cannot imagine how that would be done. Let us suppose, however, that after the 2001 census we know precisely how many people are Sikh, how many are Muslim, how many are members of the Wee Frees and how many are Roman Catholic. Now we move on to the second question, which is much more important: why should the state know that and what use will it make of the information?
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who cares so much about religion in Slough that she is no longer in her place, made the point that Sikhs in Slough might be arrested unreasonably for carrying the ceremonial weapon that is required by their religion. I would hope that the Slough police are intelligent enough not to make such arrests, and if they are not, no amount of statistical production will make them more intelligent.
Moreover, as a Scot, I was wearing my kilt and skean-dhu in the Tate gallery and was questioned by a policeman about the knife down my sock, so I explained

it sensibly to him. Finding out how many Sikhs there are to avoid their being arrested because of their ceremonial sword is about as sensible as finding out how many Scotsmen wearing kilts there are in London who might be arrested for wearing their skean-dhu. There is no sense in it at all. There is certainly no sense in a huge Government exercise such as this one to get round that particular difficulty concerning Sikhs.
My next point brings us to what some people believe to be the central purpose of finding out differences in religion, and that would be to allow the Government to allocate resources on the basis not of ethnicity, as they do at the moment, but of religion. The standard spending assessment has an ethnicity section, although I am not sure why. If a local authority has a high proportion of ethnic minorities, it will receive more money than those authorities that do not. That is a long-established principle of the division of the annual local government settlement. We have great debates about how important ethnicity is, and whether it is important if a local authority has more black or more Asians. All that is discussed in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions every year when it is divvying up the SSA.
I have heard nobody in this debate suggest that the ethnicity section of the SSA may be changed because of religion. Nobody is saying that if many Asians turn out to be Christians rather than Muslims, the SSA should be changed to take account of their religion. Anyone who suggested that would be wrong. I can think of no reason at all for saying that someone's religious faith should lead to a change in the Government's allocation of resources.
Education has been mentioned, and the provision of education with special denominational interests may be a reason for acquiring that detailed information. However, Church of England and Roman Catholic schools make up by far the largest category of such education, and denomination is the one piece of information that the census would not provide. It would not tell us how many Roman Catholics, members of the Church of Scotland or Methodists there were, so it would not help.
My school, Glasgow high school, had a good ethnic mix, and we made provision for kosher lunches and the rabbi came in to take special services while my father, who was a minister, took the services on behalf of the Church of Scotland. That happened not because we knew the general statistics but because the pupils at my school were roughly 50 per cent. Jewish and 50 per cent. Church of Scotland, and it was a perfectly sensible thing to do.
Glasgow corporation played a large part in respect of the costs of education and took account of those percentages in providing school dinners. I am glad that it did, and a number of my Jewish friends greatly enjoyed that particularly outstanding feature of Glasgow high school. However, knowing how many Jewish people there were in Glasgow would not have affected the way in which kosher lunches were provided at Glasgow high school. That knowledge would not have provided added useful information to Glasgow corporation, which, by counting heads, knew perfectly well how to work out the provision of kosher lunches at my school.
So far, no Member has come up with a convincing reason why the delivery of Government services or public services in general would be improved by the Government having such information. In the absence of that positive upside, we must return to what I said at the beginning of


these brief remarks: if the Government do not need to know, why should they know? I therefore challenge the Minister. He should not give us a lot of stuff about how many people from ethnic minorities we now have in this country, how many different religions we have, how interesting it would be to have such information or how proud people are to be members of a particular minority religion. We do not need to know any of that. We need to know only one thing: why should the Government have information, except when they need it? If they need this information, we need to know precisely why they need it and precisely by what means they would change the delivery of Government services as a result of having it.
Will the SSA system be changed? Will education provision be changed? Will the policing services be changed? How will the Government take account of the information? Which Government services will they change as a result of having it? That is question No. 1. Question No. 2, of course—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), finds that very funny. These are serious matters, although he finds it difficult to take them seriously. Perhaps that says more about him than about the debate. Perhaps he would like to intervene. I will happily give way, but I fear that he may not get to his feet.
The intellectual content of the debate may be above the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps his son, who attends Manchester grammar school, will get to know more about these matters. I hope that Manchester grammar school—one of the finest private schools in England, to which he has chosen to send his son—will take account of the different religions of its pupils. I also hope that he will think twice about laughing during future debates. He looks a little cross.
There are two fundamental problems: what use the Government will make of the information and the fact that it will be dodgy in the first place. The Minister must answer those questions precisely and specifically. What will the Government do with those statistics?

Mr. David Maclean: I consider the Bill to be misconstrued and wrong on a number of grounds. If the national census is important to the Government, and if a number of intrusive questions are to be asked, the Bill should have been introduced by them in their time so that we could have had a debate before 10 o'clock at night. They have used the private Member's Bill route to advocate the measure, given it time after the main business of the day has been dealt with, and introduced it after 10 o'clock. That is offensive to the House.
That apart, the substance of the Bill is offensive. It is wrong for the state to ask questions about religion. No criminal penalty will be attached to failure to respond, but that does not make the Bill less offensive. Let us be in no doubt: answering the question is not voluntary. When advocating his amendment, whereby there would be no penalty, Lord Weatherill made it clear that he had taken such a route because although, ideally, he would have

addressed the question of the census being voluntary, he had realised that he could not do that without wrecking the Bill. He had to send the Bill on to this House and said:
I have reflected with care on what your Lordships have had to say … I feel that we should take the arguments about a voluntary question seriously. In the interests of progressing the matter smoothly, and so that, as the noble Earl and other noble Lords wished, the Bill may pass to another place in a fit condition, I am proposing an amendment which would have the effect of removing the liability to a penalty under Section 8 of the Census Act—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2000; Vol. 609, c. 364.]
He was clear that the offence of failing to answer the question would remain, and that replying was not voluntary. The best ruse that he could invent to attempt to deal with voluntariness was removing the penalty.
I pay tribute to the Government for forcing the matter on to the agenda. It has forced us to examine the Census Act 1920 and question the validity of holding a census. It has forced us to read for the first time the Government's White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", which was published in March 1999. We would not have bothered to read that before coming across the Government's ruthless fanaticism for driving the Bill through the House.
The research that has been conducted on the census suggests to me, as someone who held ministerial responsibility, that the census is an example of research that the Government are good at starting but never know when to end. Like most Government research projects that I came across in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Home Office, one of its main conclusions was that more essential research had to be undertaken, at great cost, over the next few years.
Other colleagues have mentioned John Rickman, the Clerk of the House of Commons. In 1798, he set out the justification for a census. As the House knows, the first census was conducted in 1801. He said that the main reason for a national census was that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. John Rickman believed that the intimate knowledge of a country was necessary for legislation, but not that the state should have intimate knowledge of individuals' religion. Before the House gets carried away with John Rickman's point, it may be worth considering some other points that that distinguished Clerk made as justifications for the census.
If some hon. Members rely on only one of John Rickman's points for justification, I am entitled to rely on others to show that a census is no longer necessary and that the Bill may therefore be unnecessary. John Rickman's second point was that an industrious population is the basic power and resource of any nation, and that therefore its size needs to be known.
John Rickman's third reason for a census was that the number of men who were required for conscription to the militia in different areas should reflect the area's population. That point is no longer valid, as the Government have decimated our armed forces. Fourthly, John Rickman claimed that there were defence reasons for wanting to know the number of seamen. The fifth reason was the need to plan the production of corn and thus to know the number of people who had to be fed.
John Rickman's eighth point may still appear relevant to the Government. He said that, in a time when many feared the disaffection of the people, a census would


indicate the Government's intention to promote the public good. It seems that John Rickman, that distinguished and neutral Clerk of the House, may have been the first Government spin doctor because of his idea of doing something that the people would like. He said that the true size of the population, even after the effects of war, was probably far greater than the usual estimates and that that knowledge would
be the most consoling gratification to every lover of his country.
Another reason that John Rickman gave was that the life insurance industry would be stimulated by the results of the census. I shall not trouble the House with the full 12 reasons. However, they have probably been quoted in a slightly different form to Treasury Ministers and other Ministers over the past 200 years. Once Governments begin to undertake a huge statistical collection, they can never find the will to stop. All Governments of whatever political persuasion will always find the justification for asking yet more questions and processing yet more information, including information that they have not a hope of using or have no firm intention of using, but may come in handy one day.
Two hundred years later, in their White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", the Government have slightly different reasons from John Rickman. They state:
Government, local and health authorities, commercial businesses and the professions need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively. This need is currently best met by conducting a census every ten years covering the whole of the population, and by updating the population estimates each year between censuses using data from … births, marriages and deaths … and … estimates of migration.
The Government continue:
However, over time, such data, especially on migration, accumulate inaccuracies, and a regular census is necessary to provide information for revising the annual population estimates.
The Government must have a census in order to revise annual population estimates. Why? Why must the Government revise the annual population estimates and conduct a census? One statistical exercise is carried out to inform yet another statistical exercise, to which there may be very little point in the age of the Internet, the market research data available, and the huge amount of other information that each and every one of us must provide to various Government Departments for specific purposes.

Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. There were, I think, two censuses while he was a member of the Government. Did he protest against either of those?

Mr. Maclean: Of course not. I paid no attention to them at all, because in those earlier censuses there was no question of my fundamental human liberties being infringed by the Government asking about my religion. If the Government did not propose to ask about my religion or the religion of my constituents, I would probably have ignored the present census. It would not have been at the forefront of my mind. Because the Government have been obsessed with getting the Bill through and getting the religion question asked, I and no doubt some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been rather suspicious of what the Government are up to.
Why is that vital? I did not think that the Government were proposing any other changes, but my hon. Friend's intervention comes at exactly the right point in my speech. I was about to say that until I began to look into the matter, I thought that the only change that the Government intended to make was to ask the question about religion. However, when I studied the March 1999 White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", I found that the religion question is not the only change that the Government propose.
The Government tell us in the White Paper that
there will be a slight increase in the number of questions compared with the 1991 Census.
They go on to state that the
significant changes from 1991 in the questions proposed are: new individual questions on general health, provision of unpaid personal care, time since last paid employment, size of employer's organisation
and the question on religion, if the Bill gets through tonight. There will also be revisions to the questions on relationship within the household, ethnic group and one's qualifications.
The White Paper states that
the Government will continue to consider whether or not to include a question on income, having regard to the risks to the Census as a whole in so doing … the Government will make final proposals on whether or not the question should be included in the Census itself once research into possible means of securing relevant information from alternative sources has been completed.
When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be relevant for her to tell us the Government's intentions with regard to a question on income. Although the Bill proposes to add a question on religion to the 1920 Act, we cannot make a judgment on the single question on religion without knowing the Government's intentions on the other questions that they propose to add.

Mr. Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The questions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were debated by a statutory instrument Committee of this House and passed without a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is timely, as I was beginning to feel that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was going wide of the Bill, which deals with one particular point. I suspect that it is outside the scope of the debate to put the questions that he has been putting to the Minister.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very helpful. I was approaching the matter cautiously as I did not want to stray from the subject of the debate. If the Minister can confirm the intervention by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), that would be helpful. If all the other matters have been dealt with, we can focus purely on the one question before us tonight: the new question on religion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am the one who, from the Chair, is trying to help the right hon. Gentleman to focus on this particular point.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that help once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The question that we must address tonight is whether we give a Second Reading to a Bill that includes, for the first time, an intrusive and offensive question asking people to state their religion. I shall not return to previously traced ground, but if other matters have already been added to the 2001 census, it helps us to consider whether this is one more straw that may break the camel's back.
It is indicative of the nature of this Government, and relevant to the point that I was making, which was that, like all Governments, they want to ask more questions. They want to collect more statistics, whether they can use them or not.

Mr. Bercow: They do not like answering, though.

Mr. Maclean: That is true.
When one reads the explanatory notes to the Bill, one gets the feeling that the Government are scratching around trying to find some general justifications for the offensive question on religion that they are asking. As has been alluded to by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight, the answer is out there, plain for all to see. Various religious groups are quite clear about the purpose of the question, because they have been demanding that the Government ask it, certain in the knowledge that they will encourage all their religious adherents to answer it and that most of the more idle Christian population will not bother to answer it, or will find it offensive.
Many people fill in forms by stating that they are Church of England Christians. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, when, in the Army, one is asked to state one's religion, one picks the easiest answer. Those serving in Scotland pick Church of Scotland, and those serving in England pick Church of England. Many of those who are not strict religious adherents to a particular faith will find the question offensive and may not answer it. We shall therefore get distorted results.
Some of my hon. Friends have already suggested that the reason the Muslim community is so keen on this question is because it intends to ensure that all its religious adherents answer it faithfully and thoroughly, so that a maximum score will be marked down for some of those religions. On the other hand, a large number of members of the Christian religion may not answer the question—they may decline to answer it or not bother to answer it. We shall therefore get distorted results.
We can see from the explanatory notes to the Bill that, on the basis of those distorted results, the Government intend to allocate resources according to some of the answers that they get to the religious question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) may have been right in the assertions that he made earlier—that the Bill has some dangerous precedents, that there is a danger that it will cause distortion, and that the Government will seek to move funding away from rural areas to inner-city areas, where they pronounce that they have identified a particular religious minority desperately in need of financial help. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no good Labour Members saying "Oh, oh." We have seen it time and again. The Government did that with police funding,

directing funding to inner-city areas. After conducting research that showed that there was a rural sparsity problem, they still refused to allocate proper funding to rural areas.

Mr. Forth: Can my right hon. Friend imagine any circumstances in which taxpayers' money is likely to be diverted by the Government to a Christian community as a result of answers that might be given to the census?

Mr. Maclean: Of course one cannot envisage that in the case of the present Government, but it would be wrong in any event. It would be entirely wrong to direct resources to an area containing a large Christian population, and away from any other area. That should not be a relevant consideration. When my Muslim constituents and my Christian constituents are waiting for cataract operations, and when the waiting list is constantly growing under this Government, their religion is irrelevant; it is the shortage of resources in the health service that matters. I would find it deeply offensive if I discovered that any of my constituents who were members of a minority faith had been given poorer treatment—or better treatment—because of their religion. Religion should be irrelevant to the determining of resources from either local authorities or central Government.
There is a smell here. It comes from what some Labour Members have said, from some of what has been written in the press, and from some of the pronouncements made by members of ethnic communities. There is a suggestion that the Bill, and the amendment that it proposes, are seen by them as yet another vehicle for the distortion of Government funding, and as a stick with which to beat the Government. When they get the figures that suit them—showing high populations of certain religious communities in certain parts of the country, in comparison with, perhaps, Christian communities or others—they will use it to extort funds from the Government. The Government know that. If that is their purpose—and we know that it is—they should come clean tonight and simply say so.
Let us not pretend that there is a vital need for the statistical information. Let the Government come clean and tell the House that they want the Bill to be given a Second Reading because they want to buy votes in certain parts of the country.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have plenty of time. Let me begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see here the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the deputy Chief Whip. It is fascinating to note that he can be so upset by mention of the fact that he is a patron of Manchester grammar school. I think that he said "Cheap" 20 times; let us see how many times he says it now. However, it is nice to see him on the Front Bench, and it is nice to see him listening so carefully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to stick closely to the terms of the Bill. I do not think that gratuitous comments of that kind are helpful to the debate.

Mr. Paterson: Some factual errors were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, as a


Catholic, should know that he has the privilege of being a Member of Parliament thanks to a Conservative Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, whose Government passed the Catholic emancipation Act—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that this party, of which I am proud to be a member, had not spoken up, and had never made any progress, on the rights of religious minorities in this country. I think it important to get across that the first real breakthrough after the glorious revolution was the emancipation Act, which gave Catholics the right to be members of the armed forces and Members of this House.
The real history of this country lies in our ability to adopt wave after wave of immigrants from a kaleidoscopic variety of backgrounds and cultures, and to integrate them in our society without conflict. That is a record of which we should be extraordinarily proud. Several Members mentioned Jews. The last pogrom in this country took place in York in 1260; no other country can emulate that record. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) nodding. I believe that he comes from a Jewish culture.

Mr. Bercow: So do I.

Mr. Paterson: As does my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
The history of Jewish immigrants symbolises—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This historical passage is going outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to relate it to this narrow measure. I must request him to talk about the Bill, and leave remoter issues.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that. The point that I make is directly related to the Bill because the Bill seeks to carve the country up into ghettos. It is a recipe for this country's ghettoisation. The trick that we have learned over the centuries is to assimilate different cultures. The Huguenots, for example, came over after the revocation of the edict of Nantes. They kept their religion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that he would do well to take heed of the rulings that I am giving from the Chair. If he does not, I will require him to cease.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Just sit down.

Mr. Paterson: I will speak. We have plenty of time.
The real lesson is that the measure turns its back on our successful assimilations of previous centuries. What is worse, it is driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, by the power of attracting public funds to ethnic groups.
We already know that, since the war, the Welsh and the Scots have managed to paint themselves as afflicted minorities driven down by the English. As a result, they receive 25 per cent. more public funds than they raise in taxation.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House as a whole that we will have a properly conducted debate. Determining orderliness will continue to be the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The information that will be gleaned from the census will probably not be valid. We have the extraordinary subsection (1A), which says that
no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion.

Mr. Swayne: Can my hon. Friend assist me? Although no penalty applies for failing to answer the question, clearly, the penalty of a £1,000 fine still applies to those who give false information with respect to the question, but how is that to be policed? Ethnic information is certainly verifiable. I cannot understand how religious information can be verifiable. Surely one's religion is what one says it is.

Mr. Paterson: That is a pertinent point. It calls into question those who do not want to give their religious denomination and reply by stating, incorrectly, "None." That is a valid point.
I have listened carefully to contributions by Members on both sides of the House, but I have not yet heard any practical advantages from putting through the measure. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that the police would learn the number of Sikhs in Slough. It is their business to know how many Sikhs there are in Slough. They should know already. The fact that some faulty information will almost certainly be gleaned from the census will not benefit policing in Slough. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Lady trying to intervene?

Fiona Mactaggart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Paterson: Apparently she is not. There is no practical gain. There is the ability to gain faulty information and to draw conclusions that may have damaging effects on this country long term. For that reason, I shall oppose the measure.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I see that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who I believe is a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, is just leaving the Chamber.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for introducing and explaining the Bill. I share the disappointment of many hon. Members and of the faith communities that the Bill was not able to receive an unopposed Second Reading on the previous occasions when it was presented before the House.
The Government recognise the importance of having a clear picture of the diversity of faith communities in the United Kingdom, to make it possible to deal with the concerns and needs of all sections of the community. [Interruption.] The census is, indeed, a once in a decade opportunity to do that, reliably and consistently, for local areas across the country.
I am grateful to some of my hon. Friends, and to the hon. Members for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), for shedding the only light cast on the subject in this long debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the House that the debate will be assisted if there are no more sedentary comments?

Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Rotherham (Mr. Mac Shane) spoke about the value of the census and, particularly, of asking the question on religion.
I remind hon. Members that the explanatory notes explain very clearly—that is what they are for—why the information is being collected. Paragraphs 2 to 5 explain the background to the matter. Bearing in mind the hour and the time that we have spent discussing the matter, I shall not read out the paragraphs, especially as some of them have already been quoted.
The basic reason for collecting such information, however, is so that it can be used to inform planning, policy and services. As some hon. Members have recognised positively in their speeches, the United Kingdom is now a very ethnically and religiously diverse community. We need that information to provide the right services while recognising people's individual ethnic and religious perspectives.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: I shall not give way. I have only just started my speech, and am attempting to reply to a two-hour debate in which many points have been made.
Some hon. Members have repeatedly but very mistakenly used the word "intrusive" to describe the question. Such a description is a travesty of the situation. The Bill emphasises that answering the question is voluntary. The form will also make it clear that it is a voluntary question, and we make it absolutely plain that there will be no penalty whatever for not answering it. Opposition Members have not recognised, as they should have done, that there is no intrusiveness in a question that is purely voluntary.
Many Opposition Members have maintained that the record of those who answer the question will be scrutinised by the Government. However, the Government will not come anywhere near any of that information, whether it is provided by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) or by any other hon. Member or member of the community. The Office for National Statistics collects that information, the confidentiality of which is guaranteed for a full 100 years, and which is used purely for statistical purposes.
I was therefore shocked to hear many hon. Members effectively making an attack not only on the value of the question value but on the overall notion of the census. Many Departments think that the question would be extremely useful in planning services. Moreover, as the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire said, very many religious organisations have actively supported—indeed, campaigned—for the question to be included in the census. They have done so because they think that the information is important.
Recently, I communicated with organisations on the Bill's failure—because of objections by only a couple of Opposition Members—to make progress under the private Members' Bill procedure. I received representations from organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, the Bahai Community of the United Kingdom, the Council of the Churches for Britain and Ireland, the Jain Samaj Europe, Inter-Faith Network for the United Kingdom, the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Churches Commission for Inter-Faith Relations and the archbishops of the Church of England.

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister indicate which religious groups will benefit from the distribution of resources resulting from the census information proposed?

Miss Johnson: The point about the collection of information is that it is to enable us to plan services in the best possible way for the entire community, of whatever religious, ethnic or other background—just as we collect all sorts of other information on the basis of the census. Such information is used in planning many services.
I was shocked for much of the debate because Conservative Members were displaying quite a few prejudices: their true colours were very clearly revealed. Many other people will be shocked by some of the remarks that have been made. "Shocked" is the most appropriate word in this context.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: I shall not give way at the moment.
The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were both Ministers in previous Tory Governments. They were both heavily dependent—if they were not, it is even more shocking—on census data in the planning of the services for which they were responsible and in respect of which officials in their Departments would have brought forward information closely based on the information collected in the census.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the fact that the Bill was receiving some Government support. I have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) of the considerable co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman when he was an Education Minister with the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend which reached the statute book in 1995 with a considerable degree of Government co-operation and support, including the right hon. Gentleman's strong support in the Committee that dealt with it. So I am not surprised if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in some difficulty with the responses that rightly came from Labour Members to some of his remarks.
The right hon. Gentleman related the religious question to the ethnicity question, which, as a Schools Minister, he repeatedly used as a basis for funding schools and determining standard spending assessments—again a clear indication that such questions can be useful. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman showed no caution when he was a Minister in thinking that there was relevance in using such statistics in order to determine something.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Miss Johnson: I have already given way to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Fabricant: It is called courtesy.

Miss Johnson: I shall give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I was not sure until the very last moment whether the hon. Lady intended to give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), but we do not need any further help from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I could see in her eyes that she was just about to, which is why I persisted.
The Minister has said several times that the information will be useful in the delivery of Government services. She has now briefly mentioned SSAs, and she seems to be indicating that information about the religious breakdown of the nation will be used in the delivery of local government services through the SSA mechanism. Will she confirm whether the current study of SSAs being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take account of the information which will be gained next year with regard to the religious affiliations of the people surveyed?

Miss Johnson: Those are not questions to be determined tonight. We are here to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am well aware that a number of points that hon. Members have raised are matters which can be discussed later or which will be more appropriately dealt with when the Bill—if it receives support this evening, as I trust it will—goes to a Standing Committee for proper, detailed consideration.
When it approves the Bill, Parliament will bring census legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Subject to the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, that will enable information on religion to be available from the 2001 census throughout the United Kingdom, and will have the added advantage of giving us a United Kingdom picture.
Well-informed hon. Members will know that the draft orders for the other aspects of the 2001 census have already been debated elsewhere in the House. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) remarked, those orders were agreed without a Division. From that, it is clear that they were not considered controversial.
To underline the importance that the Government attach to the need for information on religion to be collected, we have agreed to provide time to facilitate the further

progress of the Bill. The Government will do everything possible to do that in time for a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census in England and Wales.
Subject to the Bill passing through the House and receiving Royal Assent, the Government propose to lay before Parliament an amendment to the census order providing specifically for particulars in respect of religion to be added to those that have already received the approval of this House for inclusion in the 2001 census.
Conservative Members refer to the explanatory notes when it suits them, but seem reluctant to read them in their entirety. Paragraph 13 states that the Office for National Statistics has taken legal advice, which holds that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights and meets the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Office for National Statistics also consulted widely about the inclusion of a question on religion. The religious affiliation sub-group of the 2001 census content working group comprised members of a wide range of faith organisations. As well as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, the organisations involved included, among others, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Network of Sikh Organisations, the Buddhist Society, the National Council of Hindu Temples, and the Zoroastrians, as well as a number of representatives from the Christian Churches in Britain.
We have assessed the public reaction to a question on religion in the census. Some Conservative Members seemed fearful about pride in this matter, but I believe that many people are proud of their religious affiliation, whatever it might be, and will want to answer the question.
The Government have been mindful of the particular sensitivity of such a question. We took careful note of the concerns expressed in the House of Lords when the Bill was debated there. Consequently, the Government supported an amendment to the Bill that would remove the statutory penalty for people who refuse or neglect to state in their census returns the particulars in respect of religion. I should make it clear, however, that the statutory requirement—under the terms of the Census Act 1920—to respond to all other census questions would remain.

Mr. Tyrie: The Minister has asserted that the question will be left voluntary, but Lord McIntosh did not agree. He told the House of Lords that it would not be a good idea, because
making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1717]
Does not the Minister agree that making the question voluntary devalues the census?

Miss Johnson: As the Minister most closely involved with the Office for National Statistics, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the statisticians are strongly motivated to ensure that we have as good a statistical result as possible. The Bill would not be before the House if it did not have the ONS's support as being perfectly sustainable, and the outcomes—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you with a technical point, but the


Minister who is in charge of the Bill has told the House that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights. You will know that clause 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that a Minister of the Crown must make a declaration of compatibility in writing, and before Second Reading. The only declaration of compatibility in this case is in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes, which contains a legal opinion taken by the Office for National Statistics. That is not the same as a declaration of compatibility by the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The occupant of the Chair has absolutely no responsibility for ensuring that these matters are dealt with in the correct way: it is not a matter for the Chair.

Miss Johnson: This is, of course, a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before I conclude, it is worth mentioning that the 1851 census included a question that is sometimes thought to be about religion, although that is not strictly the case. The census included a voluntary survey of churches, chapels and other places of worship with respect to the numbers attending services on the census day and the average attending in the month before, together with some other information about places of worship.
Perhaps we can learn from some of the ideas that lay behind that census. In the first census of the new millennium, we need the census information that will be collected to reflect the religious diversity that is now very much a part of the United Kingdom, to ensure that we accurately reflect that in the services that we provide and that we get it right for all communities and all religions.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 10.

Division No. 238]
[1.12 am


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Atherton, Ms Candy
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beggs, Roy
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Coleman, Iain


Benton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cranston, Ross


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Borrow, David
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradshaw, Ben
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davidson, Ian


Cann, Jamie
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Caplin, Ivor
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Caton, Martin
(B'ham Hodge H)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Dawson, Hilton





Day, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Dobbin, Jim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Donohoe, Brian H
Norri's, Dan


Drew, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Efford, Clive
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Flynn, Paul
Olner, Bill


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Ottaway, Richard


Fyfe, Maria
Pickthall, Colin


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pike, Peter L


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Plaskitt, James


Gibson, Dr Ian
Pope, Greg


Goggins, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Purchase, Ken


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Quinn, Lawrie


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Randall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Rapson, Syd


Hayes, John
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Heald, Oliver
Roy, Frank


Healey, John
Ruane, Chris


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Hepburn, Stephen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Heppell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


Hesford, Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Hopkins, Kelvin
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Shaw, Jonathan


Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Hurst, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jamieson, David
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jenkins, Brian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Steinberg, Gerry


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Stevenson, George


Jones, Ms Jenny
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)
Stringer, Graham


Kemp, Fraser
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Kidney, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
(Dewsbury)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter


Laxton, Bob
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Lepper, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Levitt, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Tipping, Paddy


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Trickett, Jon


Lidington, David
Truswell, Paul


Linton, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Lock, David
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Love, Andrew
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


McAvoy, Thomas
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Macdonald, Calum
Vis, Dr Rudi


McDonnell, John
Wareing, Robert N


McFall, John
Watts, David


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Webb, Steve


McIsaac, Shona
Whitehead, Dr Alan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


McNulty, Tony
Wilson, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Wood, Mike


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Woodward, Shaun


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Merron, Gillian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Miller, Andrew



Moftatt, Laura
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Don Touhig.






Chope, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Swayne, Desmond


Fabricant, Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Gray, James



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Eric Forth and


Nichdls, Patrick
Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put motions 5 and 6 together.

Ordered,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON BROADCASTING

That Mr. George Galloway be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown be added to the Committee.

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

That Mr. Allan Rogers be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Bill Rammell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

PETITIONS

Basic State Pension

Mr. Tom Levitt: I rise to present a petition bearing the signatures of 1,600 members and supporters of the Glossop, Hadfield and District Pensioners Association, who declare that pensioners in the Glossop and Hadfield area of High Peak are dissatisfied with the 75p rise in the basic state pension.
The petitioners therefore request that the House do address the basic level of state pension as soon as possible and in future restore the link between the basic pension and the annual rise in earnings.
The petition is signed on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Raymond Matthews, secretary of the Glossop and Hadfield Pensioners Association.

To lie upon the Table.

BSE Incinerator

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I rise to present a petition collected by Councillor Cynthia Derek and Mrs. Sandra Rocker, comprising 2,000 signatures of the citizens of Burscough in West Lancashire, which states:
That the citizens of the area entirely and utterly oppose the proposed BSE Incinerator which private interests wish to open on Burscough Industrial Estate, in that it is a totally inappropriate position; would pose threats to the health of the local population; would severely damage the horticultural industry in the vicinity and would put at risk other firms on the Industrial Estate, particularly those engaged in the food industry.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do request the Secretary of State for DETR to ensure that the proposal is subjected to normal local planning procedures and that the ambiguity in the Planning Guidance covering Incinerators be amended and corrected to protect citizens all over the U.K.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray …

To lie upon the Table.

Combined Heat and Power

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Even at this time of night, it is a great pleasure to speak about combined heat and power, which has been called the Cinderella of energy policy because its many environmental, economic and social benefits have not been fully recognised. Recently, that has changed and CHP is at the core of the UK's drive to attain diverse, secure and sustainable energy.
Combined heat and power enables the supply of electricity and heat, usually in the form of steam, from a single fuel source at high conversion efficiencies—typically 70 to 80 per cent. Demand is met by CHP at a lower level of fuel consumption, generating significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. CHP can also be linked to community heating. A network of heating pipes can supply homes, businesses and a wide range of other consumers. CHP is essentially about energy efficiency. Conventional power stations are typically 34 per cent. efficient. The much-talked about gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine power stations are, according to the Department of Trade and Industry, on average just 48 per cent. efficient. Only when CHP plant is brought into play do we get efficiencies of more than 70 per cent.—and up to 80 per cent. with some small-scale CHP schemes.
In the past few days, the royal commission on environmental pollution has published a detailed and thorough analysis of what we need to do if we are to be serious about tackling climate change. It calls for reductions of up to 60 per cent. in UK carbon emissions and sets out a series of scenarios for achieving that. It says that we need a new way of looking at energy policy—one that does not focus just on electricity production, but recognises and develops the market for heat. In that context, the royal commission has emphasised that CHP is a technology of which we need to make much wider use. Many global corporations increasingly recognise, too, that their future lies in part with combined heat and power. It is significant that a major global energy player, ABB, should announce just two weeks ago that it was reinventing itself by divesting itself of more conventional power-generating technologies and that, in future, it would focus on knowledge-driven products. For ABB, that includes wind power, micro-turbines and, in the context of this debate, combined heat and power. Other global companies like ABB, such as BP Amoco, are already at the fore of developing their CHP capacity. I am sure that more big energy players will now follow the global market leaders.
Indeed, in the UK, CHP is at work at more than 1,300 sites, including the Palace of Westminster, throughout Whitehall and at Kodak in my borough where many of my constituents work. Kodak has its own 70 MW combined heat and power plant. Like other major industrial sites that have switched on to CHP, its scheme saves it money directly and helps the site compete effectively by reducing a core business cost. I gather that, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister, both Sunderland general hospital and the Crowtree leisure centre have put combined heat and power schemes to work.
I am delighted to say that the Labour party has had a long-standing commitment to CHP. In our manifesto, we said that we would be
committed to an energy policy designed to promote cleaner, more efficient use and production, including a new and strong drive to develop … combined heat and power.
Just six weeks after we took office, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched, with the backing of the Combined Heat and Power Association and the Confederation of British Industry, a high-level campaign designed to raise awareness of CHP in the minds of business leaders. We said, too, that we would introduce a pro-CHP bias in the planning regime for new power plants and that we would set a target of at least 10,000 MW of CHP by 2010. Both those commitments are in place and 1,400 MW of new CHP capacity has been approved in the past three years, although, as I shall outline later, it remains to be seen how much further capacity will be built in current market conditions.
Each new CHP scheme produces its own set of benefits, with distinct rewards for the businesses with the foresight to commit to CHP. One particular example is Kemsley Mill, a major UK paper producer, where PowerGen CHP has installed and financed an 80 MW CHP scheme. Some £4.5 million per annum of energy savings have been achieved, with a reduction in primary energy use of 31 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 320 kilotonnes per annum, sulphur oxide emissions have been eliminated and nitrogen oxide emissions reduced by 92 per cent. That has improved local air quality, and traffic movements have been reduced and noise levels have come down significantly.
CHP also offers us considerable opportunity for our social exclusion agenda. St. Pancras Housing is one of more than 60 residential CHP schemes that the Combined Heat and Power Association has helped to develop. The St. Pancras scheme, at this pioneering housing association's head office next to Euston station, has cut the energy bills of 100 tenants by 20 per cent. Three years ago, it was able to get rid of standing charges, and the metering system that it uses puts to shame the ones that many of us have at home. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, in the work of the Government's ministerial group on fuel poverty, the real benefit of CHP and community heating is not overlooked and is reinforced.
Crucially, CHP also benefits the environment. The CHP industry has cut UK carbon emissions by over 9 million tonnes in the past 10 years. Every gigawatt of CHP that is put to work cuts UK carbon emissions by some 1,000 tonnes, making it one of the most cost-effective ways of making those cuts; hence the royal commission's strong support for CHP in its report. The Government believe that over half of all industrial carbon savings could be delivered by the wider use of CHP.
CHP also helps us to build a competitive economy. In the right circumstances, local generation is a key way of improving business performance by reducing costs. It does that by removing the need for costly long-distance transmission of power and by being highly efficient in the process. The challenge, surely, is to ensure that we have a regulatory framework that continues to deliver and enhance those rewards. I was pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe confirmed that the Office of Gas and Electricity


Markets will focus on that in its new environmental action plan. I hope that Ministers will now concentrate on monitoring Ofgem's implementation of that action plan.
A practical example of that exists at BP Energy, which has worked with English China Clays at its Marsh Mills and Par Harbour sites in the south-west and put CHP to work, delivering energy savings of some £972,000 per annum.
CHP also holds out the prospect of vital new investment and extra jobs. The UK CHP industry has invested over £1 billion in helping the UK to improve its business performance through the better use of combined heat and power. Achieving our new CHP target will, in turn, stimulate some £3 billion of new private sector investment.
Energy for Sustainable Development, a leading EU energy consultancy, suggested in a recent report that if we can achieve just two thirds of our CHP target by 2010, there could be an estimated 34,000 new jobs in the CHP sector.
Local councils also have a crucial role to play in the development of CHP, and I welcome the specific support that the Government have already given to the development of new CHP schemes in Southampton, Manchester and Tower Hamlets, all of which have developed effective partnerships with the private sector. Manchester city council and the London borough of Tower Hamlets have private finance initiative pathfinder schemes, which have secured the support needed from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to attract significant private sector investment.
The scheme that London Electricity has developed for the Barkantine estate in Tower Hamlets will, I hope, help to demonstrate how CHP can assist in harnessing the private sector to tackle the challenge of social exclusion that blights all too many inner-city communities. I hope that the Government will take forward and recognise that potential in their work on fuel poverty.
Despite that, only a small part of the potential for CHP is being exploited. The energy technology support unit has suggested that there is the economic potential almost to quadruple the use of CHP in the UK. Figures from the Building Research Establishment suggest that 1 million homes could be connected to CHP by 2010. BG Technology estimates that, in the long term, between 4 million and 6 million houses would be suitable for domestic CHP.
Why are we under-achieving on that potential? Uncertainty in the market is making investment decisions difficult. Talk of electricity prices falling by between 10 and 30 per cent. in the next couple of years and predictions of medium-term gas prices rising by almost as much add to the uncertainty of the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements. Inevitably, customers want to wait and see what happens.
Essentially, the market arrangements that Ofgem is busily building seem to focus largely on those with the capacity to trade large volumes of power in new computer-based energy markets. The trading screen seems to be replacing the reality of a power station. Smaller players do not have the capacity for year-round, 24-hour trading arrangements. As the Director General of Ofgem has outlined to the Combined Heat and Power Association, more work needs to be done to enable the small players sensibly to band together and trade. That

problem has been reinforced by the sheer costs for small players of getting involved and representing their position effectively. I hope that the Minister will urge his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry seriously to consider the issue of market inequality among the players in the industry.
CHP is about long-term decisions: the short-termism of today's energy market is therefore a key issue which the Government will need to consider in their forthcoming CHP strategy. All arms of the Government, too, need to make sure that they are consistent in their view of the industry's potential. There is concern that we do not have the measures in place to achieve the Government's new 10 GW target. I understand that the DTI's energy projections appear to be based on an assumption that the 10 GW CHP target will not be met. I also understand that that view was echoed in a recent address to the Society of British Gas Industries.
The Government's climate change consultation paper also appears to place a less firm emphasis on CHP than the DETR's previous consultation document, despite strong support for CHP in the responses. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will remain resolute in their commitment to the CHP target and give the industry the confidence it needs to invest by making sure that their message is consistent. Some further concerted and cross-cutting departmental action is needed.
In his pre-Budget statement to the House last November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that CHP would be exempt from the new climate change levy. That was widely welcomed, but it now seems that Customs and Excise is determined to put up the price of CHP power by putting the levy on power exports from CHP schemes. That seems entirely illogical in environmental terms and will significantly distort inter-company competition as some companies will get power levy-free when they use it themselves. Those that buy it in across the grid system from a CHP plant will have to pay the levy. I urge the Government to do what the Chancellor said last November and just exempt CHP from the levy. That is essential to counter the current market conditions—in particular, gas prices are rising—and the potential impact of the new electricity trading arrangements.
The excellent Utilities Bill, which is going through Parliament, will set the market framework for at least the next 10 years. In particular, the new energy efficiency standard of performance provisions are most welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that they will give Ministers the power, should they choose to use it, to introduce arrangements for CHP similar to those planned for renewables. We also need to ensure that the Government have the powers to take a lead on embedded generation. The royal commission specifically said:
Embedded generation represents a major strategic challenge for the National Grid Co plc, both technically and financially as well as for the distribution companies. We did not see any signs that the company has yet appreciated the scale of the challenge or begun to take the steps needed to place itself in a position to respond to it …
The commission recommends that the Government should therefore take the lead in addressing those challenges. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment on that.
I also hope that the Government will reinforce their drive for CHP in their planning consents regime for larger power plant to encourage power station developments,


but not just to take the easy option and build less efficient electricity-only power plant. We need to encourage companies to seek out customers for heat—or, indeed, for cooling—and in doing so move beyond purely short-term rewards to achieve the best environmental impact possible from the fuels that they use.
Focusing on CHP presents the Government with a real opportunity to create the conditions for a sustainable and competitive energy market and to lead the world in the drive for an entirely different energy agenda that brings together the benefits of liberalisation and the challenge of environmental change.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has raised an important issue and I shall do my best to reply to the points that he made. However, we may have to follow one or two up in correspondence.
Combined heat and power cuts energy costs for industry, business, the public sector and domestic users and significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. It has a vital part to play in helping the United Kingdom to meet its climate change commitments. That is why the Government are committed to promoting the widest use of CHP wherever possible. Only yesterday—although by now it must have been the day before yesterday—I visited Hickson and Welch, a chemical company in Castleford, where an impressive new CHP system is under construction. As my hon. Friend said, there are several such schemes in Sunderland. He referred to the one at Sunderland general hospital, which I opened some years ago.
The United Kingdom's combined heat and power capacity has already doubled in the past 10 years. It is now reducing energy costs by more than £500 million annually and cutting CO2 by approximately 4 million tonnes of carbon a year. Some of the biggest savings are in core industries such as steel, chemicals, paper and food and drink production. United Kingdom business and the environment are therefore benefiting. As my hon. Friend rightly said, CHP and community heating also have a part to play in alleviating fuel poverty.
As part of the draft climate change programme, the Government have announced that the target is at least to double CHP capacity to 10,000 MW in the coming decade. We are taking practical measures to encourage CHP. For example, the exemption of good-quality CHP from the climate change levy is the clearest possible evidence of our support. Schemes that fully meet the good-quality criteria that we are setting will not pay a levy on their fuel inputs, heat outputs or on electricity generated when it is used on site or sold directly to other users. That provides a strong incentive to invest in CHP. However, I duly note my hon. Friend's comments on the restriction on electricity exports, and I can assure him that the Government will keep the levy's operation under review.
Combined heat and power will also be crucial to helping energy-intensive users to meet efficiency targets under negotiated climate change levy agreements. Indeed, that will be vital in some sectors if the agreed energy or

carbon savings are to be achieved. Eighty per cent. discounts on the levy are the reward for sectors that deliver the agreed targets.
Combined heat and power is one of the technologies that is eligible for enhanced capital allowances. In 2001–02, £100 million will be available, and up to £140 million the following year, with more to follow if take-up is good. As energy services companies make up a large part of the CHP market, we are considering changes to legislation so they are not excluded. Low-carbon technologies, such as CHP, will also be promoted by a new body called the Carbon Trust.
My hon. Friend asked whether the new electricity trading arrangements would be CHP friendly. I can confirm that they will. We are working with the Department of Trade and Industry and the regulator, Ofgem, to ensure that the new electricity trading arrangements allow smaller, locally based embedded generators, such as CHP and renewables, to operate efficiently.
Ofgem and the Government are looking ahead to, and preparing the UK for, a future in which embedded generation plays a much larger part than it does at the moment. We want to ensure that CHP and other embedded generation is treated on the same basis as conventional generation. We also want to ensure that it has fair access to the wider networks at fair prices, and that it is fairly rewarded for the benefits that it brings to the network through its focus on local solutions on sustainable energy.
Our work on embedded generation will cover individual domestic customers and renewables, which also need effective access to the market. It will consider net metering arrangements. That exercise involves the embedded operators and users, generators, distribution network operators, the Government, and the regulator. There is consensus that energy is moving into a new world, and we want UK systems, structures and regulatory regimes to be ahead and ready.
The stricter consents policy for power stations has had a positive effect on CHP. As my hon. Friend rightly says, some 1,400 MW of CHP capacity have been approved in the past three years, including more than 1,200 MW under the stricter consents regime. We expect the majority of that to be built. Indeed, some 500 MW are already under construction and expected to come on line this year or next year. However, as with all commercial decisions, it is for the companies concerned to decide when, and whether, to proceed with any given project.
This stricter policy is due to be lifted as soon as the new electricity trading arrangements are in place, which is expected to be in the autumn. We have restated our strong commitment to CHP and have made it clear that we will require developers seeking consent to show that they have explored the opportunities to use CHP. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that in a statement on 17 April. We shall be discussing with developers the information needed, and I note my hon. Friend's comment that the system must be robust.
Our action in derating electricity generating plant and machinery in good-quality CHP schemes from April next year is further evidence of our commitment to treat CHP fairly, putting all CHP schemes in industry in line with those in the generating industry.
I can confirm that the Government are taking powers under the Utilities Bill to set energy efficiency standards of performance obligations on energy suppliers to encourage and assist consumers to use less energy. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that CHP is defined as a form of energy efficiency, so energy companies can attain their obligations through supporting CHP—for example, in community heating.
The Government can also set specific CHP obligations, if they wish to do so. At present, we do not envisage that being necessary. We believe that the CHP exemption from the climate change levy, exemption from business rates, enhanced capital allowances, the review of CHP's access to the grid and other measures will deliver the new CHP target, but the power is available, if it is needed.
Studies have shown that the economic potential for CHP in the UK is between 10,000 and 20,000 MW—that is, up to 25 per cent. of the UK's electricity generation capacity by 2010. We have set our new target of at least 10,000 MW in this context, and we remain convinced that it is realistic and achievable. The discussion at the Society of British Gas Industries which my hon. Friend quoted has been misreported.
We will shortly publish a comprehensive strategy on which we will consult widely to bring together all the positive measures that I have outlined. A cornerstone of the strategy is the encouragement of good-quality CHP, as that is the key to maximising environmental and economic benefits. We have consulted on proposals for a CHP quality assurance programme to assess and monitor all types and sizes of CHP. That is crucial for operating the climate change levy for good-quality CHP.
The proposals provide a practical method for accurately measuring the quality of individual CHP installations, and they gained broad support from the industry and others. On 17 May, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced the key decisions following consultation. The Government's full response will be published shortly.
All these actions are designed to stimulate CHP growth, which means new CHP users. To help them make the most of the opportunities available, we have launched the CHP club, which is a new initiative designed to help CHP users to exploit the opportunities available. Run under the energy efficiency best practice programme, it is particularly targeted at new and potential CHP users, as well as helping existing users to extend their schemes.
The club will provide members with a single point of access to all the facilities open to them. It will enable users to access information, exchange experience, ask questions, and share good practice. By providing independent, authoritative advice, and by enabling users and potential users to share their knowledge and practical experience, the club will act as a hub of support for CHP. The CHP club will play an important role in unlocking the UK's CHP potential.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government take the issue seriously. If there are points in his remarks that I have not properly addressed, we can follow them up later.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.